Chapter 9

"If he kills you, then do so [fight back]." The use of "in" (if) in this context suggests the rarity of the occurrence, as linguists state (1). Conditioning the act of surrender on a rare event may imply leaving the choice to the addressee. Here, this choice is preferred over others based on the jurisprudential principle: "An imperative following a prohibition implies permissibility (ibahah)." ¶

Among the indicators favoring the ruling of permissibility in our issue is that the Hadiths, before one is subjected to an attack in the fighting of fitna (civil strife), instruct the person to remove themselves from sight: to head to the deserts, to their camels, sheep, or land; to take a tunnel in the earth, or to remain in their house. All of this indicates a request to avoid being attacked. I believe such a request diminishes the intensity of the command to surrender when the calamity occurs and the aggression takes place, thereby shifting this command toward the meaning of permission and permissibility. ¶

Another indicator favoring the ruling of permissibility is that when the fitna occurred at the end of the era of Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) and the rebels besieged him, some companions offered to defend him, but he refused (2). If surrendering and not defending oneself were obligatory, it would not have been permissible for them to offer him what contradicts this obligation. Furthermore, it is unlikely they would offer what contradicts what is recommended (mandub), according to the opinion that surrender is recommended. Thus, this consensus on the permissibility of defense diverts the demand for surrender from the status of obligation or recommendation to one of permission and permissibility! And Allah knows best. ¶

Furthermore, the stance of Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) in surrendering to death and refusing self-defense—along with the lack of objection from the companions toward his submissive stance—is another consensus that assists us in refuting the fifth opinion mentioned regarding this issue, which claims that self-defense is mandatory. If defense were mandatory, they would not have remained silent regarding this submissive stance. This reinforces the view that both defense and surrender are permissible—by way of permission (ibahah)—when aggression occurs during the fighting of fitna. ¶

Before we conclude the discussion on the ruling of self-defense, it must be stated that refraining from self-defense—regardless of the ruling a Muslim adopts regarding it—if it leads to a greater harm (mafsada) than the harm of refraining from defense, then the ruling in this situation becomes the obligation (wujub) of defense and the prohibition (tahrim) of surrender. This is based on general Shariah maxims, such as: 'There shall be no infliction of harm nor reciprocating of harm' (la darar wa la dirar) and 'The lesser of two evils is chosen' (yuhtar ahwan al-sharrayn). Hence, many events are subject to different rulings depending on the varying circumstances and conditions; as the conditions change, their rulings change accordingly. Similarly, both specific scriptural texts (nusus) and general Shariah principles (qawa'id) collaborate in determining the Shariah ruling for them. This applies to the ruling on participating in 'fitna combat' (civil strife/infighting) and matters related to it. ¶

There remains one final point regarding the subject of fitna combat, which is: Is fitna combat part of Jihad in the path of Allah? It is self-evident that the answer is in the negative. Jihad is strictly the fighting of Muslims against the disbelievers so that there is no fitna, and the religion is entirely for Allah. Whereas, fitna combat is the fighting of Muslims against Muslims, which results in the establishment of fitna and serves a religion other than that of Allah. And there is no power nor strength except with Allah! From where, then, can the suspicion of it being 'Jihad' arise? Especially since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated that both the killer and the killed in such conflict enter the Fire? Therefore, fitna combat is not only excluded from Jihad in the path of Allah, but it and Jihad stand at opposite poles! It is true that a state of defense is permitted by Shariah, as held by many, and that... ¶

The person killed here—whether they defended themselves or not—attains the honor of martyrdom, but it is a 'hukmi' (legal/deemed) martyrdom; a martyrdom in terms of the Hereafter only. Conversely, the one killed in Jihad—as we have mentioned previously—is a martyr in the rulings of both this world and the Hereafter, or in the rulings of this world only (as will be detailed later). ¶

Therefore, a state of defense during 'fitna' (civil strife/discord) warfare is not considered Jihad in its Shari'i sense! ¶

(1) Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Muslim: 1/515. ¶

Introduction: In terms of the arrangement of the book's title and the inclusion of its subjects, this manuscript is the most authentic and complete, and it is upon this basis that this edition has been prepared. The Publisher ¶

Eighth Topic: Combat against those who usurp political authority ¶

- Introduction regarding the contract of political authority in Islam and the methods of attaining it. - Evidence for the view that the Imamate (leadership) can be established through domination and force, along with a critique. - The first piece of evidence, along with a critique. [The statement of Abdullah ibn Amr regarding Mu'awiyah: Obey him in the obedience of Allah...] - The second piece of evidence, along with a critique. [The Hadith: Even if a slave is placed in command over you...] - The third piece of evidence, along with a critique. [The command to exercise patience regarding oppressive rulers...] - The fourth piece of evidence, along with a critique. [The legitimacy of fighting the usurper, and the exception of the Sultan from this.] - The fifth piece of evidence, along with a critique. [The public interest (maslahah) in remaining silent regarding a usurper of power, to bear the lesser of two harms!] - Combat against the usurper of authority. - Firstly: What is the evidence for the legitimacy of fighting a usurper of authority? - Secondly: What is the specific ruling regarding the legitimacy of fighting a usurper of authority? - Thirdly: Is fighting a usurper of authority considered Jihad in the path of Allah? ¶

28 (Continued from page 27) I provided them with ample opportunity to speak freely so that I might understand the reality of their beliefs, for I observed that they were calling toward something whose nature I did not know, and they were expressing ideas contrary to both reason (aql) and Shariah. Thus, I asked them: 'What is the means of knowing God according to you?' They replied: 'The means of knowing God is reason (aql), and through reason alone, we understand the commandments of God.' I asked them: 'If reason is the sole means to know God and understand His commandments, then what was the need for the Prophets and Messengers? And was reason not sufficient?' They fell silent. I asked again: 'If reason were sufficient, then why is there such disagreement among you that each of you considers himself to be on the truth while labeling the other as misguided? If your intellects are the same, your beliefs should also be the same.' They were again left speechless. Thereafter, I challenged them to provide solutions to the issues I had posed based on their reason, but they could not offer any satisfactory response. I said to them: 'Look, your claim that "reason is everything" is a deception through which you are leading people astray. In reality, you are following your own desires and using reason merely as a pretext.' Following this dialogue, many of them repented from their erroneous ideologies and returned to the right path. I made it clear to them that while reason has its proper place, human beings cannot attain the ultimate truth without revelation (wahy) and prophethood. (To be continued) ¶

Eighth Section: Combat against the Usurper of Authority ¶

Introduction to the Political Authority Contract in Islam and Methods of Acquiring It ¶

In Islam, authority belongs to the Ummah, which delegates it to the ruler through a contract stipulating that he shall govern by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. This is what the Shariah texts indicate, as they designate authority in the contract of governance to be like the commodity in a contract of sale—it is the object upon which the contract is formed. Just as the seller owns the commodity and then relinquishes it to the buyer based on a contract called a contract of sale, the Ummah owns authority and then relinquishes it to the ruler based on a contract called the contract of Bay'ah (pledge of allegiance). And just as in a contract of sale, the item the buyer must offer in exchange for the commodity (the price) is mentioned, similarly, in the contract of Bay'ah, the item the ruler must offer in exchange for the authority he has received is mentioned: governing by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. ¶

There are many Shariah texts pointing to this, among them the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): "Whoever pledges allegiance to an Imam, giving him the grasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, let him obey him."(1) ¶

Meaning: As long as the contract of Bay'ah is established, the authority of governance, command, and prohibition that the one pledging previously held over himself has transferred to the Imam by virtue of this contract. On this basis, whoever from the Ummah has entered into a contract of Bay'ah is obligated to adhere to its effects, which are: listening and obeying the one who has become the new holder of authority. ¶

(1) Sahih Muslim (Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Muslim, 8/43-44). ¶

Regarding the reciprocal obligation that a ruler must fulfill in exchange for the authority granted to him under the contract of governance or bay'ah (pledge of allegiance), it is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari, on the authority of Abdullah bin Dinar, that he said: I was present with Ibn Umar when the people rallied behind Abd al-Malik. He said: I pledge to hear and obey the servant of Allah, Abd al-Malik, the Commander of the Faithful, according to the Sunnah of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, as much as I am able, and my sons have pledged the same. ¶

In the text of this bay'ah, there is an acknowledgment of 'hearing and obeying.' That is, an acknowledgment by Ibn Umar granting Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan authority, for which he deserves hearing and obedience, in exchange for Abd al-Malik governing based on the Sunnah of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger—that is, on the basis of Islam. ¶

This is the fundamental principle in Islam regarding authority, and the path through which a ruler gains power, as we have seen in the shari'ah texts. ¶

This is regardless of the other two methods of obtaining power: the method of succession (istikhlaf) or the covenant from the previous holder of authority, and the method of conquest (taghallub)—that is, seizing power by force. It is also regardless of the other method posited by the Shia sect, which is the method of designation (nass) for an infallible Imam, as this last method has not been proven through any acceptable means. ¶

Furthermore, the correct opinion regarding the method of succession is that it is merely a nomination by the previous caliph for the person he covenants, and the successor does not attain the powers of the caliphate until after the bay'ah. If the people do not pledge allegiance to him, he does not become caliph merely by being named a successor. ¶

Similarly, regarding the method of conquest, the conqueror does not become a caliph merely by seizing control of authority. Rather, if the people are satisfied with him and pledge allegiance to him, he becomes a caliph at that point through this bay'ah. If they refuse his pledge, he remains a ruler who has usurped authority, much like someone who seizes an item from another; if the latter agrees and sells it to him, the ownership of the item transfers to him. But if he persists in refusing to sell it, the original owner remains the rightful owner of the item. As for the usurper, he remains a usurper no matter how much time passes over the usurpation. ¶

The book 'Al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu' states the following: ¶

Islamic jurists have mentioned four methods for appointing the supreme ruler of the state: designation (nass), allegiance (bay'ah), succession (wilayat al-'ahd), and coercion and conquest (al-qahr wa al-ghalaba). It will become clear that the correct Islamic method, in accordance with the principle of shura (consultation) and the concept of collective obligations (fard kifaya), is one: the allegiance of the People of Loosening and Binding (Ahl al-Hall wa al-'Aqd), combined with the consent of the Ummah in his selection. As for everything else, its basis is weak due to forced interpretations of texts, reliance on weak traditions, personal desires, or the recognition of an established reality that Muslims found no wisdom or benefit in revolting against or eliminating, in order to prevent bloodshed, avoid chaos, observe external circumstances, or out of fear of the brutality of those who attained authority through illegitimate means such as inheritance and the like. ¶

However, the point that causes the most confusion in relation to our research here is: seizing power through coercion and conquest, i.e., the usurpation of authority. The texts of many ancient and contemporary jurists agree on acknowledging the authority of the usurper; consequently, fighting him is considered illegitimate. They argued for their view with several proofs, so it is necessary to present and discuss them, after which we will state our own opinion and then enter into the subject of fighting the usurper of power. ¶

Proofs for the Validity of Imamate via Coercion and Conquest, with Discussion ¶

The legitimacy of the usurper's authority and the prohibition of rebelling against him, according to the jurists who hold this view, are based on five proofs that we have traced from the statements of those who oppose the idea of fighting those who usurp power. These are: 1. The First Proof, with discussion: It is stated in Sahih Muslim, as narrated by Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Rabb al-Ka'bah from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas, that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: '...and whoever gives allegiance to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, let him obey him if he is able. Then if another comes to dispute with him, strike the neck of the latter.' I drew near—the narrator said... ¶

Narrated from Abdullah ibn Amr (who is Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Rabb al-Ka'bah): I said to him, 'I adjure you by Allah! Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)?' He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said, 'My ears heard it and my heart preserved it.' I said to him, 'This is your cousin, Mu'awiyah, commanding us to consume our wealth among ourselves unjustly and to kill one another, while Allah Almighty says: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful."' He said: He remained silent for a while and then said: 'Obey him in what is obedience to Allah, and disobey him in what is disobedience to Allah the Almighty.' ¶

Al-Nawawi says in his commentary on this hadith: 'The intended meaning is that when this questioner heard the words of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas and the hadith regarding the prohibition of contesting the first caliph—and that the second one is to be killed—he applied this description to Mu'awiyah due to his contesting of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), given that the oath of allegiance to Ali had already taken place. This person considered Mu'awiyah's expenditure on his troops, and their following him in the war against Ali, his contesting him, and fighting him, to be consuming wealth unjustly and the killing of a soul, because it was fighting without right. Thus, no one is entitled to wealth in that fighting.' ¶

Al-Nawawi says: 'His statement (Obey him in what is obedience to Allah, and disobey him in what is disobedience to Allah) is evidence for the obligation to obey those who seize leadership by force, without consensus or a pledge.' ¶

Our discussion of this evidence is as follows: The evidence here, as Imam al-Nawawi views it, is the statement of the Companion Abdullah ibn Amr: 'Obey him in what is obedience to Allah, and disobey him in what is disobedience to Allah,' with Mu'awiyah being the intended subject. ¶

However, the statement of the Companion here is not a shariah-based proof for the obligation to obey those who seize leadership or authority in general by force; rather, it is his own opinion, which others have differed with. And it appears that this dialogue... ¶

The exchange between the narrator and Abdullah ibn Amr took place before Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was killed and before Al-Hasan surrendered the Caliphate to Mu'awiyah. Furthermore, Abdullah ibn Amr’s instruction to the listener to obey Mu'awiyah in matters of obedience to Allah does not imply the legitimacy of the rule of a 'mutaghallib' (one who seizes power by force). Every individual is to be obeyed only in matters of obedience to Allah, and disobeyed in matters of disobedience to Allah, whether they are an appointed leader or not, for there is no obedience to any created being—no matter who they are—in the disobedience of the Creator. ¶

2. The second argument for the establishment of Imamate through the seizure of power by force—according to those who hold this view—is what is reported in Sahih Muslim from Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: 'My beloved (the Prophet ﷺ) advised me to listen and obey, even if he is a slave with severed limbs.' In a narration from Umm al-Husayn: 'Even if a slave is appointed over you who leads you according to the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey.' In another narration from Umm al-Husayn: 'If a slave with severed limbs—I believe she said: black—is appointed over you and he leads you according to the Book of Allah, then listen and obey' (1). ¶

Al-Nawawi said: 'Mujadda' al-atraf' means having severed limbs, and the intended meaning is the lowliest of slaves... Then he said: 'The leadership of a slave is envisioned if an Imam appoints him, or if he seizes the land by his force (shawka). However, it is not permissible to contract his leadership initially if there is a choice, as freedom is a condition for it' (2). ¶

Our discussion of these texts concerning the leadership of a slave is as follows: - Regarding the phrases: 'Even if he is a slave,' 'If a slave is appointed over you,' and 'If a slave is made an amir over you.' It is clear from the narrations 'ustu'mila' (appointed) and 'ummira' (made an amir) that it is the Imam who appointed him. As for the narration 'even if he is a slave,' while it does not explicitly state that he was appointed by someone else, in light of the other narrations, it indicates that he was granted the leadership and authority by the Imam, and thus he was an amir by virtue of that. In Al-Qastallani's commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, it states: 'Listen and obey, even if a Habashi (Ethiopian) slave is appointed over you...' It is said that this means: if he is appointed by... ¶

The Imam al-A'zam (Supreme Imam) is over the people, and it does not mean that an Abyssinian slave can be the Imam al-A'zam, for the Imams must be from the Quraish. Or, the meaning refers to the Imam al-A'zam by way of hypothesis and supposition. This is an exaggeration in the command to obey and the prohibition against causing schism or opposition. There is a consensus that the Imamate cannot reside with slaves. It is also possible that he was referred to as a slave based on his status prior to manumission. Yes! If a slave truly gains control by way of shawka—that is, military power—his obedience becomes mandatory to suppress civil strife (fitna), as long as he does not command disobedience to God. ¶

Thus, the narrations urging obedience to any ruler whom the people are not pleased with only refer to those appointed by the Imam al-A'zam. As al-Qastallani stated, these narrations serve as an analogy for the obligation to obey those appointed by the Imam, even if the people dislike them, using the slave as an example of the worst-case scenario. There is nothing in the wording of those narrations that indicates an obligation to obey one who seizes authority by force. ¶

Yes! There is a hadith that comes with the wording, 'Even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you,' which might outwardly suggest hearing and obeying one who 'ta'amara' (appoints himself/takes command), meaning one who dominates through coercion and force, even if he was not commanded or employed by anyone else! So, what is the complete text of this hadith? And how should it be understood correctly? ¶

It is recorded in Riyad al-Salihin by Imam al-Nawawi: 'On the authority of Abu Najih al-Irbad ibn Sariyah, may God be pleased with him, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) delivered a profound sermon to us that made the hearts tremble and the eyes shed tears. We said: O Messenger of Allah! It is as if this is a farewell sermon, so advise us. He said: I enjoin you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you. For whoever among you lives will see much disagreement. So follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Caliphs; hold fast to it with your molars, and beware of newly invented matters, for every innovation is a misguidance.' ¶

Al-Nawawi said: It was narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi. It appears that Imam al-Nawawi intends that the hadith of al-Irbad ibn Sariyah was narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi, even if it is not found in their collections with these exact words. This is because the text in Abu Dawud does not contain 'Even if [a slave] is appointed over you...', rather his text comes in the form of: ¶

"I advise you to fear Allah, and to hear and obey, even if he is an Abyssinian slave." (1) The text in Tirmidhi comes with the wording: "I advise you to fear Allah, and to hear and obey, even if he is an Abyssinian slave (2)." It does not contain the phrase "if an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority over you..." In any case, the narration in *Riyad al-Salihin* is one of the many narrations of the hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah. How then should this narration be understood correctly? I refer specifically to the phrase: "If an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority over you..." Can this phrase be used as an argument for those who claim the legitimacy of an usurper's authority—meaning one who seizes power by force without the people's choice or the appointment of an Imam? The answer is: Understanding the hadith correctly is achieved by interpreting the problematic parts of its wording in light of what the hadith indicates as a whole, in light of what is established in general Shariah rulings concerning the disputed subject, in light of the other narrations of the same hadith, and in light of how other Shariah texts proceed in assigning a specific meaning to problematic phrasing. These are the four aspects that must shed their light upon the hadith, which contains some ambiguous phrasing, so that the intended meaning may be revealed correctly. A: As for understanding the text in light of what the hadith indicates as a whole, the hadith commands us to hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority over us... it then mentions that much disagreement will occur among people... and it commands us to hold fast, in the midst of this disagreement, to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Caliphs, and to adhere to it firmly, while warning against every newly invented matter that is not part of Islam, for it is misguidance. Here, there is a command to hear and obey if an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority over us—what, then, is the meaning of "placed in authority" (*ta'amara*) in this text? ¶

The word 'ta'ammara' (تأمّر) carries one of two meanings: First, the meaning of 'to dominate' without having been appointed by anyone. Second, the meaning of 'to become an amir' or to accept the imarah (leadership) when appointed by another, in the sense of 'mutawa'ah' (yielding/compliance). It is stated in books of Arabic grammar and morphology that one of the most famous meanings of the scale 'tafa''ala' (تَفَعَّلَ) is the compliance (mutawa'ah) to the doubled 'fa''ala' (فَعَّلَ) form. Examples include: 'qatta'tuhu fataqatta'a' (I cut it, and it became cut), 'awwa'dtuhu 'ala al-khayr fata'awwada 'alayhi' (I habituated him to good, and he adopted that habit), and similarly, 'ammartuhu 'ala rufaqa'ihi fata'ammara 'alayhim' (I appointed him over his companions, and he became their amir). The meaning of compliance (mutawa'ah) is the attainment of the effect initiated by the doer (fa'il) in the recipient (maf'ul). The meaning in the previous examples is that the recipient accepted the effect brought about by the doer, thereby acquiring the habit of goodness, the foundation of righteousness, training in horsemanship, boldness against the enemy, and leadership over companions. Therefore, there is a doer who granted the leadership to this amir, and he did not attain it through his own act of coercion or force. Based on this meaning, we understand the statement in Sahih al-Bukhari from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him): '...By Allah, that I be brought forward and have my neck struck is more beloved to me than that I should become an amir over a people among whom is Abu Bakr...' (2). The meaning is: It is more beloved to me than to become an amir or accept the leadership over a people among whom is Abu Bakr, because he is better than I, even if the people were to choose me for it. The meaning of 'ata'ammara' here does not mean 'I dominate a people by force and coercion without their choice and consent!' This meaning is not applicable because the context of the story is Abu Bakr's proposal to the people at Saqifah Banu Sa'idah to pledge allegiance (bay'ah) to one of two men—Umar ibn al-Khattab or Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah—by their own choice and consent! ... Further detail on this meaning will follow. Furthermore, this meaning of the term 'ta'ammara' is consistent with what the Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us to adhere to when disagreements arise. That is, to adhere to his Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Caliphs. For the Messenger (ﷺ), in his Sunnah, guided us toward the bay'ah (pledge) in matters of imarah: '...And whoever pledges allegiance to an Imam, giving him his hand's clasp and the fruit of his heart...' ¶

'...then he should obey him.' (1) The Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs demonstrates that none of them became an 'amir' (commander/leader) in the sense of imposing themselves upon the people through coercion and domination. Rather, they became amirs in the sense that they were appointed, or they accepted the position of leadership when the people mandated it and chose them for the Caliphate through their consent, either by consensus or by majority. ¶

As for the argument supporting the legitimacy of seizing authority by 'ta'ammur' (becoming an amir) in the sense of overcoming by force without the people's consent and choice—basing this on the claim that the text obligates us to listen and obey whoever becomes an amir over us, and that one of the linguistic meanings of 'ta'ammur' is to dominate by power and coercion without the people's consent: ¶

I say: Moving toward this opinion contradicts the remainder of the hadith, which commands a return to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, none of whom acquired authority through seizing it by coercion, domination, or military force. To resolve this contradiction in the hadith, the term 'ta'ammur' must be interpreted according to its other linguistic meaning: accepting the position of leadership if one is appointed by others! ¶

This is how the hadith should be understood correctly, in light of the hadith as a whole. ¶

B - Regarding understanding the hadith in light of the established general Shariah rulings on this disputed subject: the general Shariah ruling is that the Emirate or Caliphate is a contract between the people and the person they choose by their consent. Acquiring the Emirate without a contract is, as previously stated, a usurpation of authority and is an illegitimate act. Hence, it is necessary to interpret the term 'ta'ammur' used in the hadith to a linguistic meaning that does not conflict with this Shariah ruling—that the Emirate is a type of contract which is not valid without consent. We have learned that the other linguistic meaning of the word 'ta'ammur' is: that a person becomes an amir or accepts the Emirate if they are appointed by someone else! ¶

C - Regarding understanding the hadith correctly in light of the other narrations of the same hadith: let us look at what the author of 'Dalil al-Falihin, Sharh Riyad al-Salihin' says regarding the narrations of the hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah: 'It has many chains of narration and differences in its wording...' (2). ¶

Having said that, I have referred to the narrations of the hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah (may Allah be pleased with him) in the books of hadith, and they all recount a single event. However, the variation in some of the wording—as it appears—is due to some narrators transmitting the hadith by its meaning (riwayah bil-ma'na). Below are the segments that serve as the point of evidence from the hadith across various narrations and sources: ¶

- In Al-Jami' al-Saghir: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you...' - In Mishkat al-Masabih: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if it is an Abyssinian slave...' - In Kitab al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi Asim: 'Fear Allah, and obedience is upon you, even if it is an Abyssinian slave...' - In Sunan Ibn Majah, there are two narrations of the hadith: The first: '...Upon you is the fear of Allah, and listening and obeying, even if it is an Abyssinian slave.' The second: '...And upon you is obedience, even if it is an Abyssinian slave.' - In Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, there are two narrations: The first: 'And upon you is obedience, even if it is an Abyssinian slave...' The second: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if he is an Abyssinian slave...' - According to Ibn Hibban: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if he is a maimed Abyssinian slave...' - In Sunan al-Darimi: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if he is an Abyssinian slave...' ¶

- In Hilyat al-Awliya: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if he is an Abyssinian slave.' (1) - In Al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn by al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, there are four narrations of the hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah, which are: First: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you.' Second: 'And obey whoever Allah has made responsible for your affairs, and do not dispute authority with those who possess it, even if he is an Abyssinian slave.' Third: 'I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if he is an Abyssinian slave.' Fourth: 'Upon you is the fear of Allah—I believe he said: and to listen and obey, and you will see much disagreement after me.' (2) - Thus, we observe that in all these narrations across various sources—in addition to the two narrations of Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi mentioned earlier—the phrase 'ta'amara alaykum' (is appointed over you) does not appear. Indeed! The word 'ta'amara' appears in only one narration that I have come across—in addition to the narration in Riyaḍ al-Salihin—which states: In Sunan al-Bayhaqi with the wording: '...I advise you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you.' (3) - It is worth noting that al-Bayhaqi reports this hadith with this wording, '...even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you,' from 'Abu Abd Allah al-Hakim,' the author of al-Mustadrak. However, al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak—as we saw a moment ago—provided four narrations of the hadith, and not one of them contains the phrase 'even if [he] is appointed over you.' Perhaps al-Bayhaqi received the 'ta'amara' narration from al-Hakim orally, and al-Hakim did not record it in his Mustadrak. - After this survey of the narrations of the hadith of Irbad ibn Sariyah (may Allah be pleased with him), and the fact that the vast majority are devoid of the word 'ta'amara,' it is likely that this word 'ta'amara' came about through some narrators reporting the hadith by its meaning (riwaya bi-al-ma'na), considering that the meaning of 'ta'amara' is: 'he became an amir (commander/ruler).' ¶

Or before the emirate, by having someone else appoint him, so that the meaning in this narration aligns with the meaning provided by the other narrations of the hadith of Al-Irbad ibn Sariyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Thus, the correct understanding of this hadith is achieved in light of the other narrations. ¶

D - As for understanding the hadith in its proper context in light of other Shariah texts—which dictate carrying a difficult expression to a specific meaning—I have, for this purpose, referred to the 'Al-Mu'jam al-Mufahras li-Alfadh al-Hadith' (Concordance of Hadith Words), which contains the words of hadiths found in the Muwatta of Malik, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim), and the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Al-Darimi. I consulted this concordance under the root 'amr' (أمر) and searched for 'ta'ammara' (تأمَّر), and found that it lists six texts containing this root, which are: ¶

The First Text: What is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari in the 'Book of Jihad', chapter: 'He who assumes leadership in war without an emir if he fears the enemy.' Under this heading, Bukhari mentions the Battle of Mu'tah and the martyrdom of Zayd ibn Harithah, Ja'far ibn Abi Talib, and Abdullah ibn Rawahah. As stated in the text: '... then Khalid ibn al-Walid took it—meaning the banner—without an official appointment, and Allah granted him victory.' It states in 'Fath al-Bari': 'Ibn al-Munir said: It is derived from this hadith that if someone is designated for authority and referring to the Imam is impossible, then authority is established for that designated person according to Shariah, and his obedience becomes mandatory as a ruling. This is what he said; and it is not hidden that this applies only when those present agree upon him.' (1). ¶

It is clear from this text that by using the phrase 'man ta'ammara' (he who assumes leadership) in his chapter heading, Bukhari meant one whom his companions chose for leadership when referring to the supreme authority was impossible. It does not mean someone who imposed himself by force and coercion through military power without the choice of the people. ¶

The Second Text: Found in Bukhari in the 'Book of Expeditions' (Al-Maghazi) - chapter: The departure of Jarir to Yemen. ¶

In the account of one of the kings of Yemen who accepted Islam, named 'Dhu Amr,' it is reported that when he came to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) during his caliphate, Dhu Amr said to Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali: 'O Jarir! You have a claim of honor upon me, and I shall tell you something: You, the people of the Arabs, will continue to be in a state of goodness as long as you consult one another to appoint a new leader whenever one dies. But if it (the caliphate) becomes a matter of the sword—meaning through force and subjugation—then they (the caliphs) will behave like kings, with the anger and pleasure of kings.' Ibn Hajar comments in his Sharh: 'Tammartum' means you consulted one another, or it can be read with a shortened vowel and doubled 'm' (tammartum), meaning: you appointed an amir from among yourselves by mutual consent. ¶

It is clear from this text that the meaning of 'tammartum,' as opposed to 'if it is by the sword,' is that you appoint an amir of your own choosing, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar stated, and not that one seizes power over them through military force without the people's consent. ¶

Third text: In Sunan Ibn Majah, in the Book of Wills, it is narrated that Talhah ibn Musarrif said: 'I asked Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) leave a will? (concerning the caliphate or otherwise). He said: No. I asked: Then how did he command the Muslims to make wills? He said: He bequeathed the Book of Allah.' Malik said: Talhah ibn Musarrif said: Hudhayl ibn Shurahbil said: 'Would Abu Bakr take authority over the Wasi (designated successor) of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)? Abu Bakr wished that he had found a covenant from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) so that he could be led by it as a camel is led by its nose ring.' ¶

The commentary explains: 'Would Abu Bakr take authority?' This is a rhetorical question of denial: Is it possible that Abu Bakr would presume to rule over Ali if he were truly the designated successor as the Rafidah claim? Far be it from him. 'A covenant' means any explicit directive for someone to follow, leading him as a camel is led by its handler. ¶

Thus, the term 'ta'ammur' (seeking/accepting leadership) in this text refers to accepting the authority granted by the people who appointed Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as their leader. This hadith negates the possibility that Abu Bakr accepted the position while there existed a covenant from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that Ali (may Allah honor his face) should be the leader. Since there was no covenant or will for Ali, Abu Bakr accepted the people’s appointment of him. He was not imposing himself as a leader over Ali—meaning, he would never have accepted to be a leader over Ali had such a will been proven! ¶

Therefore, the word 'yata'ammar' here does not mean overcoming or coercing through military force without the choice of the people. ¶

Fourth Text: It is narrated in Sahih Muslim, in the Book of Leadership (Kitab al-Imara): 'On the authority of Abu Dharr, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: O Abu Dharr! I see that you are weak, and I love for you what I love for myself: Do not lead (la ta'ammuranna) even two people, and do not be responsible for the property of an orphan.' (1) ¶

'La ta'ammuranna': Its original form is 'la tata'ammuranna'. Al-Nawawi said: 'This hadith is a great principle regarding avoiding positions of authority (wilayat), especially for one who lacks the strength to perform the duties of that position.' ¶

It is clear from the hadith that the intention is to warn against taking up positions—whether leadership or guardianship over an orphan's wealth or the like—while being incapable of fulfilling the duties of that position, as Al-Nawawi stated. That is: do not accept leadership while being incapable. The meaning of 'la tata'ammuranna' is not: 'do not take leadership by force and coercion through military power without the consent of the people.' Furthermore, even if that were the meaning, the hadith forbids this type of 'ta'ammur' and does not approve it. However, although this meaning is an argument for us and a refutation of those who claim the legitimacy of 'ta'ammur' in the sense of seizing power by force without the people's consent, we do not believe in holding onto any evidence simply because it aligns with our view when we know that its context was intended for a purpose other than the one we are discussing. ¶

Fifth Text: It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, in the Book of Hudud—the narrative of Umar ibn al-Khattab regarding the story of the pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and how Umar refused to be a leader over a group that included Abu Bakr, where... ¶