Questioner: As-Salaamu alaykum Wa rahmatullaah wa barakaatu-hu. To proceed, O Shaykh, indeed I love you because of Allâh. May Allâh reward you best, we want an explanation regarding this doubt which some people who are in the Jamâ’ât do raise concerning amirship. They say, the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) commanded that a Ameer should be appointed on every journey which is a sojourn, that why should we not appoint a Ameer for ourselves in this world which is a long journey; a Ameer who will enjoin what is good upon us and unite our ranks. They cite that as the proof for the permissibility of making an oath of allegiance to other than the ruler (of a country). So we want an explanation regarding the matter with proofs from the texts of the Sharee’ah. May Allâh put you under His Protection, and reward you best.
Answer: Praise to Allâh the Lord of the worlds, may He send benediction and peace upon the Messenger, his family and Companions.
To proceed:
The hadith talking about appointing a Ameer on a journey was recorded by Aboo Daawud in this wording:
إِذَا خَرَجَ ثَلاَثَةٌ فِى سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ
‘When three persons go out on a journey, let them appoint one of them as the Ameer.’ It was reported in the route of Muhammad bn Ajlaan from Naafi from Aboo Salmah from Aboo Saeed al-Khudree (may Allâh be pleased with him); hadith number 2591.
It was also recorded with the chain above on the authority of Aboo Hurairah (may Allâh be pleased with him) in the following wording:
إِذَا كَانَ ثَلاَثَةٌ فِى سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ
‘When there are three persons on a journey, let them appoint one of them as the Ameer.’ Hadith number 2592, and both of them come under the chapter of ‘A People on a Journey Whom One of them is Appointed as A Ameer over the Others,’ chapter number 87, in the book of Jihaad. Ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee (may Allâh bestow mercy on him) rated the hadith as hasan in As-Saheehah number 1322. He said, Aboo Awaanah recorded it in his Sahîh (8/18) and said, ‘There is a supportive proof for it in the hadith of Ibn La’ee’ah who said, Abdullaah bn Hubayrah narrated to us from Aboo Saalim Al-Jeeshaanee from Abdullah bn Umar (may Allâh be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘It is not permissible for a group of three persons in a desolate land, (to stay on), except that there should be a Ameer appointed over them (from among themselves).’ He said al-Imâm Ahmad recorded it in the Musnad 2/176-177. Al-Imâm al-Albaanee (may Allâh bestow mercy on him) said, its men are trustworthy save Ibn La’ee’ah who is poor in memory. End of quote from As-Saheehah.
The author of ‘Aun al-Ma’bood Shar’h Sunan Abee Dawud commented on the two hadith of Abu Sa’eed and Abu Hurairah (may Allâh be pleased with both) that al-Khattaabee (may Allâh bestow mercy on him) said, ‘They are commanded to appoint a Ameer so that their affairs will be together and they will not be divided among themselves, or occur among them some differences. (Al-Imaam) At-Trimidhee is silent over the hadith.’ End of quote.
His words ‘when there are three persons’ mean when they are a group of people the least of which can be three, let them appoint a Ameer among themselves.
As for the claim of some people upon the methodology of partisanship, justifying their errors, by appointing Ameers for themselves at home beside the general Ameer (for the country), and giving oath of allegiance to such an unknown Ameer thinking that the legality of appointing a Ameer for a travel indicates its legality when not on a travel upon the principle of Prioritized Analogy – that if such is permissible in a short journey which will not last long then it is more permissible in the journey of life which is very long.
I say: This claim of theirs is an error, based on the following points:
One: Allâh is the Lawgiver and the Messenger (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) is the deliverer of His Sharee’ah. It is therefore not permissible for anyone to legislate beside Allâh and His Messenger (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam), in His Deen, or that such should bring a law Allâh and His Messenger (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) have not permitted.
Two: The difference between journey and being at home is very clear; everybody knows it. Those who are at home are already under the rulership of the General Ameer therefore it is not permissible for them to take another Ameer beside him, otherwise there will be anarchy and loss of lives. The law of Allâh will never allow such a thing to be let alone permitting or commanding it as a law. The law of Allâh disallows carrying out a rebellion against the ruler even if his is sinful and tyrannical. There are many ahadith forbidding that.
For instance in Sahîh Muslim on the authority of Umm Salamah (may Allâh be pleased with her), the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said,
سَتَكُونُ أُمَرَاءُ فَتَعْرِفُونَ وَتُنْكِرُونَ فَمَنْ عَرَفَ بَرِئَ وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ سَلِمَ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ رَضِيَ وَتَابَعَ قَالُوا أَفَلَا نُقَاتِلُهُمْ قَالَ لَا مَا صَلَّوْا
‘There shall be rulers whom you shall approve of some their acts and disapprove of some. Whoever approves what is good is free and whoever disapproves of what is evil is safe but whoever is pleased with and obeys what is evil (is faulty).’ They said, ‘Should we not fight them?’ He (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) replied ‘No, inasmuch as they observe salaah.’
In another version, it goes thus,
فَمَنْ كَرِهَ فَقَدْ بَرِئَ وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ فَقَدْ سَلِمَ
‘Whoever hates their evil is free and whoever disapproves (of it) is safe…’ the other part of the hadith is like the first one.
The meaning of the hadith is that some ruler will engage in some acts that you will know are good and some other acts you will know are evil that whoever abhors the evil acts with his heart and knows that they are falsehood is free; so also is whoever disproves of the acts with his tongue, he is safe. But the way to make the correction is doing so secretly before he ruler; this is better accepted and safe for the Ummah; that will not lead to anarchy. But whoever is pleased (with the evil) and obeys (it) such is the sinner. But when the Companions asked if they should fight the unjust rulers he (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said no inasmuch as they observe Salaah. That indicates the prohibition from staging rebellions against the ruler; inasmuch as he observes the Salaah.
Also in Sahîh Muslim in the hadith of Arfajah (may Allâh be pleased with him) who said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) say,
نْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ
‘Whoever comes to you after you have become united over a person (as your leader) and wants to split your togetherness then kill him.’
Also in Sahîh Muslim in the hadith of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree (may Allâh be pleased with him), he said the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said,
إِذَا بُويِعَ لِخَلِيفَتَيْنِ فَاقْتُلُوا الْآخَرَ مِنْهُمَا
‘When oath of allegiance is made to two khaleefahs at the same time, kill the other one.’ Still in Sahîh Muslim in the hadith of Abdullah bn Amr bn Al-Aas (may Allâh be pleased with father and son) who said, ‘We were with the Messenger of Allâh on a journey then we arrived in a place; there were some of us tendering their tents while some others were sharpening their arrows. All of a sudden an announcer came announcing, ‘Salaatu Jaami’ah!’ then we gathered round the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) and he began to speak,
إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ نَبِيٌّ قَبْلِي إِلَّا كَانَ حَقًّا عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَدُلَّ أُمَّتَهُ عَلَى خَيْرِ مَا يَعْلَمُهُ لَهُمْ وَيُنْذِرَهُمْ شَرَّ مَا يَعْلَمُهُ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ أُمَّتَكُمْ هَذِهِ جُعِلَ عَافِيَتُهَا فِي أَوَّلِهَا وَسَيُصِيبُ آخِرَهَا بَلَاءٌ وَأُمُورٌ تُنْكِرُونَهَا وَتَجِيءُ فِتْنَةٌ فَيُرَقِّقُ بَعْضُهَا بَعْضًا وَتَجِيءُ الْفِتْنَةُ فَيَقُولُ الْمُؤْمِنُ هَذِهِ مُهْلِكَتِي ثُمَّ تَنْكَشِفُ وَتَجِيءُ الْفِتْنَةُ فَيَقُولُ الْمُؤْمِنُ هَذِهِ هَذِهِ فَمَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يُزَحْزَحَ عَنْ النَّارِ وَيُدْخَلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلْتَأْتِهِ مَنِيَّتُهُ وَهُوَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَأْتِ إِلَى النَّاسِ الَّذِي يُحِبُّ أَنْ يُؤْتَى إِلَيْهِ وَمَنْ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا فَأَعْطَاهُ صَفْقَةَ يَدِهِ وَثَمَرَةَ قَلْبِهِ فَلْيُطِعْهُ إِنْ اسْتَطَاعَ فَإِنْ جَاءَ آخَرُ يُنَازِعُهُ فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَ الْآخَرِ
‘Indeed there was no Prophet before me except there was a reason for him to direct his Ummah to the goodness which he knew for them or warn them from an evil he knew for them. Indeed the safety of my Ummah is in its first, their last shall be afflicted with afflictions and matters you will not like. There will be calamities which what comes first will be seen as being minor to what will come later. Some calamities will come and the believer will say this is my destruction yet the calamity will be removed. Another one will come and the believer will say ‘this is it.’ Whoever therefore likes that he be safe from the hell and made to enter the Jannah Should not die except that he believes in Allâh and the Last Day, and should do to the people what he likes they should do to him. Whoever makes an oath of allegiance to a Imâm by giving him his hand and heart should obey him as he can. If any other ruler comes trying to wrestle power from him then his neck should be cut off.’
Yet in Sahîh Muslim in the hadith of Ubaadah bn As-Saamit (may Allâh be pleased with him), he said the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) invited us and we gave him our oath of allegiance. Among what we gave him as allegiance was that we would hear and obey in activeness and otherwise, ease and difficulty and when others are given preference over us and that we would not wrestle power from those in charge except ‘if you see a clear kufr with which you have a proof against from Allâh.’
I ask, which other agitation for power is greater than making allegiance to other than the general ruler? What will be your stand when the real ruler commands you to do something and the other leader commands otherwise; who are you going to obey among the two? Will you obey the first one and disobey the second one or vice-versa? If you obey the first and leave the second then you are guided; only that you should know that by obeying the first and leaving the second you have rendered the allegiance you gave him obsolete which acting with it is a mere joke. But if you were to obey the second and leave the first whom you have made allegiance to, giving him your hand and heart, then it would mean you have sinned against your Lord, and you have become the cause of any anarchy that might erupt in your society. If there should be bloodshed then you are the means thereto and you will bear the consequence only Allâh is aware of. So also if people’s rights are taken as a result, you are the means thereto, and you will suffer for it. Check yourself and repent unto Allâh so far there is a room for acceptance of repentance.
It you were to say, there is no allegiance binding upon you, you should know that the chiefs in your locality have made it on your behalf and other people in your community. So there is allegiance binding upon you whether you like it or not. The Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) indeed say, ‘they should be taken to your chiefs’ thus he made the allegiance of the chiefs (to the ruler) as the allegiance made by the people of the community.
If you were to say, the first allegiance is nullified, we will ask you what nullified it? If you say the rulers allowing interest banking has nullified it, we will ask you is allowing interest banking tantamount to committing kufr? If you say yes, we will say that is the thought of the Khawaarij – those who declare Muslims as unbelievers because of major sins (they commit), and they believe they will abide forever in the hell, thus they do no regard anyone as believers except whoever is upon their belief. As for Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, they do not declare anyone as unbeliever as a result of any sin they commit even if it were a major sin; even if the person repeats the sin in a number of times. If you ask for the proof for that, we will tell you the authentic hadith about a man who was brought to the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) repeatedly as a result o drinking liquor. A man said when the man was brought another time for the same offence, ‘may Allâh curse him; how often is he brought for taking intoxicant!’ The Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) then said, ‘Do not aid Shaytaan against your brother.’ Thus the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) called him ‘brother in faith’ even though he was a drunkard. Drinking liquor is one of the great sins. Repeating the act of drinking did not remove him from Islam rather the Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) rebuked the person who cursed him. Allâh the Mighty Lord also said
وَإِن طَآئِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُواْ فَأَصْلِحُواْ بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الأُخْرَى فَقَاتِلُواْ الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّى تَفِيءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ فَإِن فَآءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُواْ بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُواْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ
“And if two parties or groups 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 Allâh; then if it complies,
then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily!
Allâh loves those who are equitable.
“The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islâmic religion).
So make reconciliation between your brothers...” [Al-Hujuraat, 9-10].
So Allâh called the two parties ‘believers’ even though the Prophet (salaLlaahu alayhi wa sallam) had said, ‘When two Muslims meet each other with their swords, the killer and the killed are in the hell fire.’ And he (s) also said, ‘Abusing a Muslim is transgression and fighting him is Kufr.’ What is intended by Kufr in the statement is kufr ni’mah, that is, the fellow disbelieved in the virtue of the Islamic brotherhood, so it is a minor kufr. Thus it has become clear that whoever is guilty of a major sin is not a kaafir as a result, even if he were to repeat the sin in a number of times inasmuch as he does not legalize it. If he were to legalize it then he becomes a kaafir even if he does not do it.
Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar (may Allâh bestow mercy on him) said in Fathul-Baaree (10/66), ‘There is a consensus that liquor whether small or much is haram. The statement of the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) ‘every intoxicant is haram’ is authentic, and whoever legalizes what is haram becomes a kaafir by the consensus opinion.’ End of quote.
But what kind of legalization will be considered?
Answer: Legalization is an act of the heart. This is when the man makes his heart to believe a prohibited act is halal even if he does not pronounce it out. Thus whoever believes Zinaa is halal becomes a Kaafir even if he does not do it, and whoever does it believing it is forbidden is (just) a sinful Muslim. Whoever believes liquor is halal is a kaafir even if he does not take it, and whoever drinks it believing it is prohibited is a sinful Muslim. Therefore, how do we (now) know the legalization (of the heart)? The answer is that we know it when someone says it, e.g. that liquor is halal or that ribaa is halal, or that Zinaa is halal. Or if he writes that in a book which we can authoritatively ascribe to him. Anything beside that, we will say legitimization is a matter of the heart and none knows what goes on in the heart except Allâh.
Therefore the proofs of those who declare Muslims as unbelievers because of committing major sins, even if they are carried out repeatedly, are defeated. Such people have nullified allegiance to the rulers upon such claim despite the fact that the Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) only permitted fighting the ruler when we see clear cut kufr which we have proofs for with Allâh. He (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said obedience should remain so far they observe the salaah. ‘Obey them inasmuch as they observe salaah.’ (It should be known also that) obedience to the rulers is upon what is good, he (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘No obedience to a creature in disobedience to the Creator.’ Yet there is another condition that must be met (before we fight the ruler), that we should possess the ability to remove him. ‘We made allegiance to the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) that we would listen and obey (the rulers).’ Then he (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘As much as you can.’ Then we said, ‘(in respect to) Allâh and His Messenger Who are more merciful to us than our souls.’
Therefore (we like to ask), is there any other justification for appointing another Ameer beside the General Ameer, and making allegiance to another unknown ruler beside the ruler who is known to the (generality of) the people? Nothing justifies that except self-desires people of innovated methodology are known to have; those who have adopted another methodology beside the methodology of the Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam). They, because they turn away from the guidance of the Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam), are afflicted with (obedience to) self-desires and falsehood. Indeed we are from Allâh and to Him we shall return.
(So also) if you claim your allegiance is upon carrying an Islamic work which you say is calling people to Allâh and fighting in His Path, we will say the Islamic work has made it binding upon you, (that you should follow that which is correct), as exposited in the Book of Allâh and upon the tongue of His Messenger (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) such as the following:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ . إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَبَيَّنُوا فَأُولَئِكَ أَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنَا التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ
“ Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences 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 Allâh and cursed by the
cursers.
“Except those who repent and do righteous deeds, and openly declare (the
Truth which they concealed). These, I will accept their repentance. And
I am the one who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” [Al-Baqarah:
159-160].
If you do the Da’wah because of Allâh, you will do it upon obedience to Allâh’s Command and His Messenger’s, then you will be regarded as being sincere and will be rewarded, but if you are doing it because of the person you have made (a false) allegiance to, I fear lest if you are not only being pretentious and just seeking the pleasure of the person you have given your allegiance, therefore you will have no reward and you will regret on the Day when regret will be of no value.
Third: The command from the lawgiver (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) is as regard appointing a Ameer for journeys; it is specifically for that, as he (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said,
إِذَا خَرَجَ ثَلاَثَةٌ فِى سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ
‘When three persons go out on a journey, let them appoint one of them as the Ameer.’
His statement, ‘when three persons go out’ is specifically a conditional statement meaning that they should appoint a Ameer but when they are at home, they should not. And in the hadith of Ibn Umar he (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) said,
وَلَا يَحِلُّ لِثَلَاثَةِ نَفَرٍ يَكُونُونَ بِأَرْضِ فَلَاةٍ إِلَّا أَمَّرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ أَحَدَهُمْ
‘It is not permissible for a group of three persons on an inhabited land to stay on except that they appoint a Ameer from among them…’ Recorded by Ahmad (2/176-77). Ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee (may Allâh bestow mercy on him) said in As-Saheehah (3/314): ‘The men of the chain are trustworthy except Ibn La’ee’ah who is defective in memory but what preceded it can be merged with it to give it strength. It is therefore clear (from the narrations) the permission of the lawgiver (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) regarding appointing a Ameer for a specific journey nothing else. Whoever however thinks that such a permission gives room for appointing a Ameer at home (apart from the general Ameer) then such is an ignoramus who does not know anything. It is better if he makes himself unknown (to the people) and not publicize his ignorance to others. All success lies with Allâh.’
Below is also a fatwa of Shaykh Saalih al-Uthaymeen (may Allâh bestow mercy on him) on the matter:
As-Salam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa baarakaatu-hu; a question. When a person is appointed a ruler upon a section of the people on a journey, what are the rules guiding him as their Ameer? So also is when one of the people who are with him on the journey disobeys him, is such a sinner or not?
Answer: What is known is that the Messenger of Allâh (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) commanded (a group of) travellers to appoint a Ameer for themselves so that there will be no confusion. What is for such leader is that he should be obeyed in matters that have to do with the journey, as for other matters, it is not binding that he should be obeyed. For instance, if he tells one of the travelers that he should no fast while the fellow wants to fast on a Monday, then he should not obey him. But if he were to say the group should camp in a place then it is binding that they obey him. Such a Ameer should however fear Allâh the Mighty, and that he should give proper consideration to trustworthiness and that he should do only what will benefit the people. As I said, the Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) did not command that a Ameer should be appointed for a journey except that he wanted such a Ameer to be obeyed. There is no benefit in a Ameer that is not obeyed, but this should be obeyed in matters relating to the journey alone. What is known is that when we say he must be obeyed then whoever disobeys him is a sinner.’ End of quote. Liqa’aat Al-Baab Al-Maftooh 3/179, Daarul-Basrah, 54th edition.
Source: www.ajurry.com
Addendum
Shaykh Muqbil’s Fatwa on Amir-ship in the Jamâ’ât and Jam’iyât
Question: What does the institution of Amîr implies in the Sharî'ah? When is it allowed and when it is not? Answer: The institution of Amîr of Sharî'ah is meant for the (overall) Imâm of the Muslims. Once we could find an Imâm for the Muslims, that is the Amîr of the Sharî'ah. Whomever the Imâm of the Muslims appoints as an Amîr over Egypt, Yemen, Sudan or over Libya – as this will happen in shâ'a llâh – are all Amîrs of the Sharî'ah.
In addition, the leader of a group of travellers is also referred to as Amîr as the Prophet (salAllâhu alayhi wa sallam) says: 'Whenever three persons set out (on a journey), let them appoint one of them as the Amîr.'
The Muslims of today are being afflicted with the Imârah of bid’ah. While I was living in Egypt, sometimes, I will find three people with an Amîr who will invite me to be their fourth. Consequently, people became segregated because of this Amirship about which Allâh does not revealed any authority.
The Amîr of Tablîgh Jamâ'ah is upon bid’ah, the Amir of Ikhwânul-Muslimeen (being the root of organizations such as Tadâmunul-Muslimeen, TMC, Ta’aawunul Muslimeen, Jama’atu Takfeer wal Hijrah,etc.)
is upon Bid'ah and any Jamâ'ah that is not from the Imâm of the Muslims
will be considered as upon bid’ah. When I say, Imâm of the Muslims, I
do not refer to the libertine Shiite Imâm of the Muslims; 'Alî Akbar
Hâshimî Rafsanjânî (their current president is Mahmoud Ahamadinejad). He
should not deceive us with his Râfidah (Shiism) as we will not be
pleased that other people of Islâm be counted among them’. End of quote.
[See Ghâratul Ashritah (1/158)].
