Are the methods of da'wah (calling to Islam) based on divine text or independent legal reasoning, and what are their criteria and examples?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : If we understand these examples by considering the public benefit that is sent and prescribed, within the previously mentioned constraints, then we can reach the core of the answer to that question. I apologize for the length, as such modern questions require a detailed explanation so that a person is fully aware of the matter. So I say:
If the means adopted today were found without any negligence on the part of Muslims in carrying out the rulings of the Shari'ah, and if adopting them does not lead to any harm, such as what I mentioned earlier regarding the broadcasting of the iqamah (second call to prayer) and reciting the Qur'an outside the mosque, then I have no doubt about the permissibility of adopting this means with these strict constraints. Let us give an example from past and present history so that the difference between permissible and impermissible means becomes clear, in addition to what has been mentioned before:
We all know from the biography of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that when they were besieged in the city by the polytheists, Salman al-Farisi proposed digging a trench. Digging trenches was not known among the Arabs. When Salman put forward this proposal and said, "We used to do this in our land," the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) adopted it. This was one of the means the Messenger (peace be upon him) took, and victory was his companion. This is a means that emerged and was not known among the Arabs, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) adopted it. It is also reported in some battles that he used the mangonel and similar means. This is evidence for the permissibility of using some newly emerged means because they lead to achieving a religious benefit.
As for today, the opposite example is this: there are some people or some groups who adopt means that are the means of the disbelievers, representing their customs, traditions, and ideas, which are based on what Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) described them with:[At-Tawbah 9:29]
These means, such as cinema, acting, and the like, cannot be considered religious means for conveying the da'wah to people, or for making them means to attract the hearts of Muslims with such means that the disbelievers have practiced in the lands of the West. Rather, we must suffice with teaching the Book and teaching the Sunnah, for in them is sufficient educational means that makes us dispense with adopting these means that come to us from the lands of disbelief and misguidance, and which contain much that contradicts the religious rulings. This is what comes to my mind in answer to that question.
If the means adopted today were found without any negligence on the part of Muslims in carrying out the rulings of the Shari'ah, and if adopting them does not lead to any harm, such as what I mentioned earlier regarding the broadcasting of the iqamah (second call to prayer) and reciting the Qur'an outside the mosque, then I have no doubt about the permissibility of adopting this means with these strict constraints. Let us give an example from past and present history so that the difference between permissible and impermissible means becomes clear, in addition to what has been mentioned before:
We all know from the biography of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that when they were besieged in the city by the polytheists, Salman al-Farisi proposed digging a trench. Digging trenches was not known among the Arabs. When Salman put forward this proposal and said, "We used to do this in our land," the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) adopted it. This was one of the means the Messenger (peace be upon him) took, and victory was his companion. This is a means that emerged and was not known among the Arabs, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) adopted it. It is also reported in some battles that he used the mangonel and similar means. This is evidence for the permissibility of using some newly emerged means because they lead to achieving a religious benefit.
As for today, the opposite example is this: there are some people or some groups who adopt means that are the means of the disbelievers, representing their customs, traditions, and ideas, which are based on what Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) described them with:
and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth
لا يحرِّمون ما حرمَ اللهُ ورسولُه ولا يدينون دين الحقThese means, such as cinema, acting, and the like, cannot be considered religious means for conveying the da'wah to people, or for making them means to attract the hearts of Muslims with such means that the disbelievers have practiced in the lands of the West. Rather, we must suffice with teaching the Book and teaching the Sunnah, for in them is sufficient educational means that makes us dispense with adopting these means that come to us from the lands of disbelief and misguidance, and which contain much that contradicts the religious rulings. This is what comes to my mind in answer to that question.