The first cited basis of the author is the following narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh): "Whosoever dies without an oath of allegiance (bay'ah) on his neck, he will die the death of Jahiliyyah ." I have already explained the correct context and meaning of this narrative. In one of my earlier responses, I had written: The Qur'an in Saad 38: 26 says: O David, We have made you a 'Khalifah' [i.e. ruler] in the land, so, judge among people with truth and justice and do not pursue any vain desires, for they shall deviate you from the path of God. Indeed those who deviate from the path of God shall be inflicted with a painful punishment, for ignoring the Day of Accountability. A close consideration of this verse shall show that following the truth (which, obviously, includes carrying out the directives of the Shari`ah ) is one of the duties of the 'Khalifah' , but is clearly not included in the definition of the word 'Khalifah' . Had it been a part of the definition of the word 'Khalifah' , there was then no need to repeat the directive "so, judge among people with truth and justice", as this implication would then have been included in the word 'Khalifah' . According to the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), after the establishment of a rule, Muslims must remain obedient to the rule and not be a source of collective disturbance and anarchy. It is, in fact, in this context, that Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: Whoever dies in a state of anarchy, without being obedient to his leader, dies in a state of Jahiliyyah . (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, No. 16271) According to another narrative reported in Muslim, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: Whoever refuses obedience [to his ruler] shall meet God, on the Day of Judgment, in a state that he shall have no excuse [for his behavior]. Whoever dies without allegiance [to his ruler], dies a death of Jahiliyyah . ( Muslim , Kitaab al-Imaarah , No. 3441) In one of my other responses, explaining the same narrative, I had written: The words of the referred narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), themselves, entail a clear indication of the fact that they refer to a situation, where a rule has already been established and a ruler is already present. The referred narrative has been reported as: Whoever frees a hand from obedience [to his ruler] shall meet God, on the Day of Judgment, in a state that he shall have no excuse [for his behavior]. Whoever dies without allegiance [to his ruler], dies a death of Jahiliyyah . ( Muslim , Kitaab al-Imaarah , No. 3441) The first part of the narrative relates to turning back from one's pledge of allegiance to one's ruler. It is obvious from this part of the narrative that a 'ruler' and a 'rule' and a 'pledge of obedience' to the 'ruler' already exists. After this, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have continued saying: "Whoever dies, without pledging allegiance to his ruler...". Thus, the first part of the narrative has established the pre-existence of a 'ruler', for the pledge of allegiance. Seen in the correct perspective, the narrative entails two directives regarding the rights of the Muslim rulers, which their subjects must steadfastly fulfill. 1) when a rule is established and a ruler takes charge, the Muslims should not turn back on their pledge of allegiance and obedience toward the ruler; 2) when a rule is established and a ruler takes charge, no Muslim should avoid pledging allegiance to him, thereby keeping himself free of his responsibilities toward the 'ruler'. The second cited basis of the author is the following verse of the Qur'an: Let there arise a group from amongst you ( min kum ) inviting to good (Islam), commanding the good (Ma'ruf) and forbidding the evil (Munkar) and they are the ones who are successful [3:104]. We have already discussed this verse in one of my earlier responses to your questions. There seems to be no reason to discuss it any further. The author writes: "... Although those two obligations are required from the individual and the state, but the individual's undertaking of these two actions whilst remaining outside of a group will not, especially in the absence of a state for the Muslims and the absence of the Khaleefah for them, will not remove the sin of not forming a group. Calling to Islam and commanding the Good and forbidding the Evil are in themselves Fard , but forming structures for this purpose in a group or party is also Fard ." The individual has been directed to fulfill his obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil at a mutual level, in his specific surroundings (See Al-Taubah 9: 71 and Al-Asr 103: 3), however, the state is directed to form a group with authority for the same purpose ( Aal Imraan 3: 104). In the absence of the state or where the state does not fulfill its responsibility of forming such a group, the individuals are responsible only to fulfill the obligations placed on their own shoulders. The individuals are not responsible for the state's lack of compliance with the directives of the Shari`ah . Formation of groups for the stated purpose is not a fardh upon the individuals; the individual may or may not form such a group. The author writes: "The stipulated group, until it can be described as an 'Ummah' or 'Jama'ah' , must fulfill two points: First, that there should be a bond which binds the group such that they become one body. This bond has been set down by the ayah which is the Da'wa to Islam and commanding the Good and forbidding the Evil, which itself is the Islamic Thought (Fikra) , which means the Islamic 'Aqeeda and the thoughts, rules and detailed opinions that emanate from it, and are necessary for the Da'wa carriers to undertake such actions. Secondly, it is the presence of an Ameer (leader) for this group to whom obedience is obligatory within the issue which he has been made Ameer for, due to his (saw) saying: "It is not allowed for three people to be in any place without appointing one of them as Ameer ". So the group which is required by the Shari'ah to carry the Islamic call and to command the Good and forbid the Evil must combine two things together, they are: The Islamic Thought and an Ameer to whom obedience is obligatory. It should be easily understandable that when there is no clear directive entailed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah regarding even the formation of any such group as mentioned above, then obviously the two 'must fulfill' points are also self proclaimed and have no basis in either the Qur'an or any of the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). The 'Ameer' , referred to in most of the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relating to the subject, to whom, according to these narratives, obedience must be pledged is the 'Ameer al-Mu'mineen' or the 'Ameer al-Muslimeen' - i.e. the 'head of a Muslim state'. Obviously, this right of the Muslim ruler is not transferred to any self-proclaimed or appointed leader of any religious or non-religious, formal or informal organization or group, even if the purpose of such organization is to strive for the so-called 'reestablishment of "Khilaafah" '. It would be completely out of place to derive any guidelines regarding the structure of any formal or informal group or regarding the rights of any leaders of such groups from those directives of the Prophet (pbuh), which relate specifically to the structure of the Muslim state and the rights of the rulers of this state. The fact that the Prophet (pbuh) has advised Muslims to appoint a person as a leader of their group, even if they are to undertake a journey, does not necessitate that the person appointed as a leader in such issues must be given the same rights, which according to the sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) must be given to the head of the Muslim state. Such directives, on the contrary, only imply that Muslims should live an organized and disciplined life to the extent that even if they have to undertake a journey, they should appoint one person as their leader. Likewise, if the Muslims decide to organize the propagation of Islam in the form of a group, such organization because it is not expressly prohibited, comes within the scope of the activities, which are permissible. The Muslims may also appoint or elect a leader of such an organization. However, this does not mean that the responsibility of the Muslims toward the appointed or the elected leader would be the same as those toward the head of the Muslim state. The two, obviously, are incomparable. The author writes: ... However, these obligatory rules are from the jurisdiction and responsibility of the state. Thus, the establishment of the state that is entrusted with the implementation of these rules on behalf of the Muslims is obligatory based on the Shari'ah principle: 'Ma laa yatimm al-wajib illa bihi fahuwa wajib' (That which is necessary to establish a Wajib is itself Wajib ). The referred principle is quite logical, understandable and acceptable. However, the application of this principle to the mentioned situation is not correct. It is not that because it is obligatory upon the Muslims to punish their criminals in a specific way and because the punishment of criminals is possible only through the establishment of the state, therefore, it is obligatory to establish a state. The correct thing to say is that the Shari`ah requires the state to (for instance) punish its criminals in a particular way. The directives relating to the punishment of the criminals are addressed to the Muslim state, they do not relate to the Muslims in their individual capacities. Thus, the directives of the Shari`ah relating to the collectivity (like punishment of criminals, for instance) are an obligation for the state, not the Muslim individuals. This is precisely the reason why none of these directives were revealed before the Muslim state of Medinah came into existence [1] . Had the case been as the author interprets it to be, these directives would have been revealed in Mekkah and the state of Medinah would then have been created for the specific purpose of the implementation of these directives. However, this was not the case. The state of Medinah was created as a natural collective requirement of the Muslim collectivity, and once this state was established, some directives were given for the administration of the state as well. In the same manner, all the existing Muslim states of today are required by the Shari`ah to fully implement the laws entailed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah . If the leaders of these states do not implement these laws, they shall be answerable for their avoidance to do so, on the Day of Judgment. However, the Muslim subjects of these states are not responsible for the avoidance of their rulers in implementing the directives of the Shari`ah . To further understand the above explanation, it might help to note that there are some responsibilities that the Shari`ah assigns to a person only if he attains a specific position. For instance, there are certain responsibilities, which the Shari`ah assigns to all Muslims, while there are others which are assigned to a person only if he lives in a neighborhood; then there are those, which are assigned to a person only after his marriage; then there are those assigned to a person only after he/she becomes a father or a mother; then there are those which are assigned to a person only if he/she has a specific amount of wealth in his possession; then there are those, which are assigned to a person only if he is given charge of or made the head of his collectivity. Now, in each of these cases (except for the first one) the person is neither responsible for the fulfillment of those directives of the Shari`ah , which are not assigned to him in his present capacity nor is it obligatory for him to attain the position in which any additional responsibilities become applicable to him. Thus, it would be absolutely incorrect to say that because the Shari`ah has given directives regarding children, therefore, the principle 'Ma laa yatimm al-wajib illa bihi fahuwa wajib' requires everyone to become a 'father' or a 'mother'. In the same manner, it would not be correct to say that because the Shari`ah requires the state and the ruler of the state to behave in a particular fashion, therefore, it is obligatory upon ALL Muslims to strive to create a state and put a ruler in position. The author writes: "The establishment of this group or party is an obligation of sufficiency (Fard 'ala al-Kifaya) . If the Muslims establish a party which meets the Shari'ah conditions then the sin of not establishing a party or group is removed, but the sin due to not working to establish the Islamic state is not removed. This group or party's undertaking of Da'wa to Islam and commanding the Good and forbidding the Evil, in this situation, where there is no state for the Muslims, ruling by that which Allah has revealed, and no jihad for the sake of Allah to convey Islam as a call to the world, makes the work of this group to be focused on Establishing the Islamic state and appointing a Khaleefah for the Muslims. So joining this group or other groups and parties that are free from blame, is obligatory upon every Muslim until the Khilafah state is established. Each Mukallaf (legally responsible person) will be sinful if he does not perform this obligation and anyone failing in this obligation will also be sinful." As I have stated earlier, the establishment of the referred group is not an obligation at all. The author writes: These groups or parties do not require any permission from the ruler in order to be established. On the contrary, making this Fard dependent on the ruler's permission is Haram because undertaking Fard actions like the prayer, hajj , establishing a party or group or to work with them are in obedience to the order of Allah (swt). Obeying the ruler in leaving a Fard is disobedience (sin). The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "There is no obedience to a created person in disobedience to the Creator"." The author has first misinterpreted the verse as one addressed to the common Muslims, thereby deriving an obligation equivalent to Sala'h , Hajj etc. for the common Muslims and has then drawn the above results. I do not agree with the basic premise of the derivation. You write: Is their conclusion that both joining a group and establishing a group are obligatory at all credible in the light of their exposition and in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah ? My answer to your question can be easily derived from the foregoing explanation. I hope this helps. March 2, 2001 [1] It was precisely the same case in the revelation of such directives in the Torah. As in the Qur'an, directives relating to the collectivity were only given in the Torah, after the establishment of independent rule. Answer published by Moiz Amjad