Is it permissible to hold peaceful demonstrations and marches to express the right to opinion?

The questioner : Is it permissible to hold peaceful demonstrations and marches to express the demands of the Muslim people? If the answer is no, we ask that you cite the evidence; because holding these marches falls under the category of unrestricted public interests, and under the principle that what is necessary for the completion of an obligation is itself obligatory. The default ruling for means is permissibility until a text comes prohibiting them. Also, holding these demonstrations and marches aligns with the guidelines mentioned by the Shaykh "Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Khalik" in his treatise: "The Muslims and Political Work"?

The Shaykh : It is true that if means do not contradict the Shari'ah, their default ruling is permissibility, and there is no dispute in this. However, if the means consist of imitating non-Islamic methodologies, then these means become un-Islamic. Going out for demonstrations, or declaring dissatisfaction or satisfaction, or expressing support or rejection of certain decisions or laws, this system aligns with the ruling that says: "The ruling belongs to the people, from the people, and for the people." But when the society is Islamic, there is no need for demonstrations; rather, it requires establishing the proof against the ruler who contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah, as is narrated. And I say this "as is narrated" as a reference to some of what is narrated, but in any case, it clarifies a known historical fact that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), when he stood as a preacher urging people to abandon exorbitance in bridal gifts, the narration is authentic up to this point.
And the point in the other narration, which has weakness in its chain, is that a woman stood up and said: "O 'Umar, the matter is not in your hand. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) mentioned in the Noble Qur'an: ; so how do you say that it is not permissible except four hundred dirhams as a bridal gift for your daughters?" So 'Umar's answer, if the narration is authentic, was: "'Umar erred and the woman was correct."
Thus, the Islamic society does not need these systems and the means that follow from them. When the Islamic society is realized, a person can enter and convey his opinion and proof to the one in authority, or at least to his deputy, and does not need to appear in such demonstrations, which we received as part of what we received from the customs and systems of the Westerners. And as is the case now, we imitate the Westerners in many of their customs and traditions, so it is necessary to distinguish between what is permissible for us to take from them and what is not permissible. Look, for example, we take from them some means; if these means lead to a prescribed purpose, or at least a permissible one, and do not involve reviving the meaning of imitating the disbelievers, then this is a permissible matter. An example of this can be recalled in two cases; one is established in terms of narration, and the other has weakness.
As for the established one, it is what came in "al-Sahihayn" from the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the story of his departure (peace and blessings be upon him) as a traveler and his stopping at a place. When morning broke and he went out to relieve himself, al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah wanted to pour the ablution water on the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so he poured on him until the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) came to rolling up his sleeves.
The point: Al-Mughirah said: "He was wearing a Roman tunic with tight sleeves, so he could not roll up his arms because of their tightness, so he took them out and threw the tunic over his shoulders; until he (peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution and washed his arms."
The point: That he (peace and blessings be upon him) wore a Roman tunic; this means that if there is a garment from the clothes of the disbelievers attributed to them, and it does not contain the appearance of imitating and copying them, it is permissible due to the benefit of repelling harm and the like that follows from it.
And likewise, the second example, which I mention for its fame in the biography, even though it is not established in the hadithic way; and that is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to descend in a place other than the trench, perhaps because al-Mundhir ibn al-Habab said that this was revelation.

The questioner : Al-Habab ibn al-Mundhir.

The Shaykh : Al-Habab ibn al-Mundhir, or is it opinion, war, and stratagem? He said: . He said: Then we will descend in another place.
Now I correct myself and say, but there is a benefit in this; this is narrated in the biography and is not authentic, but it has no connection to our example. The example is digging the trench; where Salman, as was narrated from him, said that when they were besieged in a certain country, they would surround the country with a trench. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) agreed to that because of the clear benefit in it, free from any harm. By this system... we receive the customs of the Westerners.
Now we come to another example; there are people who wear different jackets, there is no objection, but what is the meaning of wearing pants? What is the meaning of wearing a tie? There is no benefit from that except imitating the customs of the Westerners and being influenced by their traditions; so it is necessary that we distinguish between what is in harmony with Islam and its principles and rules, and what is repulsive and abhorrent to it.
So these demonstrations are not an Islamic means to express the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the Muslim peoples; because they have other means by which they can proceed. And what comes to my mind is that in reality, when we approve of such demonstrations, it is as if we imagine that the Islamic society, after it actually becomes an Islamic society, will remain in its systems and customs on the custom of the Westerners. Everything will change, and the social situation in the Islamic society will be in no need of such demonstrations.
And finally: The correct view is that these demonstrations change the system of governance if the organizers are insistent on that? No, and how many and how many demonstrations have taken place and occurred, and many, many people were killed in them, and then the matter remained as it was before the demonstrations; so we do not see that this is a means that falls under the category that the default ruling for things is permissibility; because it is from the traditions of the Westerners.