The argument of those who see the permissibility of demonstrations by the story of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab's (may Allah be pleased with him) conversion to Islam; the Muslims went out in Mecca, he was in one row and Hamzah in another row

The questioner : These people who hold demonstrations cite from the biography that when 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) embraced Islam, the Muslims went out in Mecca, 'Umar in one row and Hamzah in another row, and they say: "This is a demonstration," in display and condemnation of what the tyrants of Quraysh and their disbelievers were doing; so what is your answer to this citation?

The Shaykh : My answer to this: How many times did this phenomenon occur in the Muslim society?

The questioner : Once.

The Shaykh : Okay; does one occurrence make it a followed Sunnah?
The scholars of jurisprudence say: If a prescribed act of worship is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for which its doer is rewarded, it should not be persisted in constantly forever, for fear that it becomes a followed custom; such that with time, that matter which is originally recommended becomes an obligatory matter in the minds and habits of people; such that if any Muslim leaves this recommended act, severe condemnation arises against him. They said this, and this is from their jurisprudence; so what do you say if emotion boils over on an occasion, and such a group as mentioned in the biography goes out; and it is taken as a followed Sunnah? Rather, it is taken as a proof for what the disbelievers do constantly and forever to the Muslims who have not done that at all after this modernity, despite the severity of what necessitates it. We know, with great regret, that many of the previous rulers issued rulings contrary to Islam, and many people were imprisoned unjustly and oppressively, and perhaps killed; so what would be the position of the Muslims? The Messenger (peace be upon him) ordered in some authentic hadiths the obligation of obeying the ruler even if he takes your wealth and beats your back; I mean from this that things occurred in the past centuries that should be condemned collectively, but none of that occurred. And from here, we fear from this so-called awakening; we truly fear from it, as we are pleased with it, because it is an emotional awakening and not a scholarly awakening to the extent that protects this awakening from leaning right and left. There is no doubt that in Algeria - and in all lands of Islam - there is such an awakening that manifests in the launch of the Muslim youth after they were sleeping and not awake, but you see them have proceeded on a path that indicates they have not understood the religion of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and the examples of that are very many; so let us not go beyond what we are dealing with, and this citation is sufficient for us now.
This citation indicates ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, for what I mentioned earlier, this incident occurred, and I say, correcting myself, that I remember this incident was mentioned in the biography, but I do not recall now if it is authentic in its chain. If any of you knows that it was mentioned in a reliable book of the Sunnah, remind me; otherwise, the matter for me needs review. Assuming the establishment of this demonstration when 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) embraced Islam, this occurred once, and if it occurred once, it does not become a Sunnah; such that we support what the disbelievers do, and then we place the Muslims under the violation of this Sunnah; because it did not repeat. And if it repeated, over all the eras and these long years, it is a drop in the ocean. It is not valid to be taken as evidence for such a reality that the disbelievers do, and then we follow them in that. This citation means smoothing out, justifying, and legitimizing this reality, whatever its nature.
I remember well that the Hanafi scholars explicitly stated in a jurisprudential issue, while acknowledging that it is a Prophetic Sunnah, that it should be left - sometimes -; and that is the Sunnah of reciting Surat al-Sajdah on Friday. This is established in "the two Sahihs," yet the Hanafi scholars explicitly stated that the imam of the mosque should leave this Sunnah - sometimes - for fear that the persistence of the imams in this Sunnah would result in a belief forming in the minds of the common people that contradicts this Sunnah, and raises its ruling above its level. And I have witnesses to this, which confirms for us this precision in jurisprudence and understanding of the Sunnah.
I remember well that the imam of the Great Mosque in Damascus, the Umayyad Mosque, led the Fajr prayer on a Friday and did not recite Surat al-Sajdah. No sooner had the imam finished his taslim than a great uproar arose from the worshippers. They rebelled against the imam; why did you not recite Surat al-Sajdah? So the imam tried to convince them, saying: O brothers, I know that this is a Sunnah, and I recite it constantly in the Fajr of every Friday, but it should be left in practice. But as the poet said:
"And if you called, you would hear a living person *** But there is no life for whom you call
And if you blew on a fire, it would light *** But you are blowing on ashes"
The shouting continued for a very long time because this imam left the recitation of Surat al-Sajdah on that morning.
And stranger than that is what happened to me personally; I was vacationing in a village about sixty kilometers from Damascus, named "Mada'a," and it is in a mountain. So I went down to the mosque on Friday morning to pray with the congregation of Muslims there. It happened that the imam did not come, so they looked and found no one there but me, and I was a young man at that time; but my beard had started to grow, so they thought well of me and put me forward. I, in truth, do not memorize Surat al-Sajdah well, so I did not want to take the risk. So I started with Surat Maryam, and read the first two pages in the first rak'ah. When I wanted to bow and said takbir while bowing, I felt that all the people had fallen into prostration. I was bowing and they prostrated. What does this indicate to you?

Those present : It indicates the custom.

The Shaykh : It indicates the custom, yes. And with regret, as there are in some old and even new mosques a long minbar that cuts across the row, and not the first row, some of these minbars cut across at least two rows. This minbar, with the smallness of the mosque there in the village, cut across the first and second rows. So those who were directly behind me felt their mistake, so they corrected it and joined me in bowing. As for those who were behind the minbar, they remained bowing until they heard my words - excuse me - they remained prostrating until they heard my words: "Allah hears the one who praises Him"; and then they shouted, meaning they invalidated their prayer. There was noise and commotion, and I, of course, persisted until I completed the prayer in its entirety. Then I turned to them; I said to them: O people, do you not have shame? Do you not have shame? Are you Arabs or non-Arabs? Do you not distinguish between the reciter's words in the first rak'ah - excuse me - and ? Do you not distinguish between this and that? If this had happened in the lands of the non-Arabs, it would be a disgrace for them; so what about you, and you are Arabs? But it seems that your minds are occupied with planting and milk and such matters. In this incident, I was confirmed in the truth of the words of the scholars I mentioned earlier that the imam should consider the situation of the society he lives in; so that they do not exaggerate in some rulings. This story and the one before it show you that matters in the Shari'ah must be taken without exaggeration, without raising what was a Sunnah to the level of obligation, and to - yes - obligation, and what was an obligation we lower to the level of the Sunnah. All of this is excess or negligence, which is not permissible. So this is the answer to this citation which indicates the ignorance of those who cite it. Please.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : This story was mentioned in ... the conversion of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) and in "Al-Siyar A'lam al-Nubala."

The Shaykh : I agree, but this does not benefit us regarding the validity of the hadith.

The questioner : No, it is with a weak chain of narration.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : This story about the Islam of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab is weak.

The Shaykh : I agree with you. The story of the Islam of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, in which it is said that he entered upon his sister, and so on; this story is indeed weak. It is used as evidence by those who say that it is not permissible for a Muslim to touch the Qur'an except in a state of ritual purity. If this story was not reported except through this route, then it is a weak story. Do you hear me or not? Yes. As for me, I said earlier, with caution, fearing that this story might have been reported alone in some of the books of the Sunnah with another chain of narration, in which case that chain would be either good in itself or good due to supporting evidence. As for the well-known story, which Imam al-Daraqutni included in his "Sunan," I am now citing the source, so I say: The Imam al-Daraqutni narrated this story in his "Sunan" with a weak chain of narration. If this story, which contains that display, was reported with another chain that can be used as evidence or proof, then that is fine. Otherwise, this story—which the brother referred to—is weak and it is not permissible to rely on it as evidence.
Please.