If the Khilafah is contracted to an individual by the pledge of those it is valid to be contracted with, the pledge of the remainder of the people is a pledge upon obedience and not a pledge of contracting; and so, any one who is seen to have the potential of rebellion is forced to give the pledge.

The evidence for this is what happened in the pledge of the four Khulafaa’, because it was an Ijma’ of the companions. In the pledge of Abu Bakr (ra), the people of power and influence (Ahl Al-Hal wal-‘Aqd) of Madinah alone were sufficient, and that was the case in the pledge of Umar (ra), and in the pledge of ‘Uthman (ra) it was enough to take the opinion of the Muslims in Madinah, and take the pledge from them, and in the pledge of Ali (ra) the pledge of the majority of the people of Madinah and Kufa was enough. All of this indicates that it is not necessary that all the Muslims have to give the pledge in order to contract the Khilafah; rather the pledge of most of their representatives is enough. As for the remainder, then if they gave a pledge their pledge is upon obedience.

With respect to forcing those whom may rebel to take the pledge after the pledge of the majority of the representatives, the evidence is the resolve of our master Ali (ra) to make Mu’awiyah give him the pledge and agree with what the people had agreed, and his forcing of Talha and Az-Zubayr to take his pledge, and none of the companions rebuked him for doing so, though some of them gave him advice not to remove Mu’awiyah from the governorship of As-Sham. The silence of the companions upon the actions of one of them, if it was from the actions that are rebuked – such as forcing someone to take the pledge whereas it is a contract upon satisfaction and consent – is considered to be an Ijma’ of silent consent, and is considered a Shari’ah evidence.