Some people divide rulers into two types.
A legitimate Muslim ruler, to whom allegiance is obligatory.
And a Muslim ruler who is illegitimate, to whom allegiance is not obligatory.
Both are Muslims, but the second has more wrongdoing and sins.
Is this distinction correct?
The matter of allegiance is not up to each individual.
Allegiance belongs to ahl al-hall wa al-'aqd: scholars and decision-makers.
They are the ones who give allegiance, and the rest follow them.
It is not a condition that every Muslim pledge allegiance.
Did women and children pledge? That was not the case in Islam.
If ahl al-hall wa al-'aqd, the people of knowledge, pledge first.
Those of sound judgment and statecraft pledged to the ruler.
The rest must follow them.
Muslims are one hand and one community.
This is how the ruler is appointed in Islam.
It is not by elections nor by everyone having an opinion.
This won't do. This goes back to:
"When there comes to them news of security or fear, they spread it."
They chew it over in their gatherings. Each one wants to solve the problems.
Each one wants to get involved in the problems. This won't do—chaos.
This is entrusted to those with authority to decide.
"When there comes to them news of security or fear, they spread it."
They spread it around. It became the talk of gatherings.
Each one voices his opinion on it.
The ignorant, the hypocrite, and the scholar. This won't do.
Had they referred it to the Messenger.
and to those in authority.
Those able to infer it would know.
"And if not for Allah's favor on you and mercy, you'd follow Satan save a few."
Public affairs are not for commoners nor for all to get involved.
Rather, they belong to Ahl al-hall wal-'aqd among Muslims. Yes.