An Example of the Ruler’s Submission to the Sharia (Holy Law):
The people of Mosul revolted against Abu Ja’far Mansour. Mansour had previously wagered with them that if they did so, their blood would be halal for him. After the rebellion, he gathered the jurists, among whom was Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him. Mansour began speaking, saying, “Isn’t it true that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: ‘Believers fulfill their commitments and conditions?’ The people of Mosul have made a condition with me not to rebel, yet they have gone against my agent, so their blood has become halal for me.” A man from among those present said, “Your hand is open, and your order is acceptable. If you forgive, it belongs to you; if you punish them, they deserve it.” Mansour then addressed Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, asking, “O Sheikh, what do you say about this? Am I not worthy of the caliphate? Is not our caliphate a safe house?” The Imam, may Allah have mercy on him, replied, “They mentioned a condition that they did not possess, namely making their blood halal. You have imposed a condition on them that you do not have the right to set, because the blood of a Muslim becomes halal only under three circumstances.” He referenced the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who said, “The blood of a Muslim does not become halal except for three reasons: 1. An adulterer who is married; 2. A body equal to a body; 3. An apostate who has separated from the Muslim community.”
“If you accuse them,” the Imam continued, “you have done something that is not permissible.” Mansour then ordered that they leave him. After everyone dispersed, he privately called Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, and said, “O Sheikh, what you said was correct; now go back to your city.” Mansour halted the unjust bloodshed due to the decree of the Holy Sharia articulated by Imam Abu Hanifah; may Allah have mercy on him.
Keynote
The views and opinions of the scholars of Salaf Saleh regarding interacting with rulers or attending their meetings depended on the rulers’ conduct. If the ruler was just and adhered to Islamic law, they would encourage him; if he was oppressive, they would rebuke him.
Now, the question arises: How should scholars approach rulers?
If the ruler is just and eager to implement the Islamic system, enforcing the limits and rites of Allah’s religion, there is no disagreement among scholars regarding the permissibility of cooperation and gatherings. As Allah, the Most High, has commanded: «وَ تَعاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَ التَّقْوى» (“Help and support each other in the way of goodness and piety”).
However, regarding rulers who are oppressive or who partially or wholly oppose Islamic rulings while claiming to believe in Islam and often participating in worship with Muslims, Allamah Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, categorizes this group into three categories:
1. The First Case: The entry of scholars into such rulers’ presence is prohibited according to holy Sharia and is condemned in the hadith. The holy Prophet, may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “Whoever fights against oppressive rulers is saved; whoever isolates himself from them is healed or is close to being healed; and whoever associates with them and cooperates with them has become a partner in their wrongdoing, thus making him one of them.”
2.The Second Case: If the sultan himself seeks to meet the scholar, it is obligatory for the scholar to advise him and explain the method of reform and expediency.
3. The Third Case: The scholar avoids the ruler and does not see him, while the ruler does not seek to meet him. However, it should be noted that the survival of the oppressive ruler should not be appreciated, nor should he be praised.
By 
