The Shaykh’s remarks on the Salafi methodology of da'wah in reform, on the occasion of his reading and commenting on an article published in the Kuwaiti "Al-Mujtama'" magazine

The Shaykh : Like the previous research on the Salafi methodology of da'wah in a research paper this evening, on the occasion of my having read an article in "Al-Mujtama'" magazine, which is published in Kuwait—and it is an Islamic magazine—so that you may know the danger, or rather the greatness, of our holding fast to the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and to the methodology of our righteous predecessors. If Muslims neglect this methodology, they will stray from the straight path. We gave you an example from the Islamic beliefs concerning the Noble Qur'an, which is the first origin, the first source, and the first reference for the Islamic Shari'ah, on the basis that it is the speech of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), and not the speech of humans or of anyone other than humans. We gave an example of the extent of deviation in understanding the Book and the Sunnah from the methodology of the righteous predecessors regarding the Noble Qur'an, considering it to be from the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). How did things reach the point where some Islamic sects stripped this Noble Qur'an of being the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)? Some of them explicitly stated that it is not the speech of Allah, but rather a created thing. Some agreed with this claim implicitly, though they did not state it explicitly; they denied that Allah has audible speech, and described it as internal speech. Describing speech in this way is denial of the divine attributes, one of which is that it is heard from those whom Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) addresses with it, whether they are righteous or wicked.
I do not, of course, want to repeat what has already been said, but on the occasion of my reading this magazine, I wanted to present to you an example from our Islamic life today. The author of this article is dealing with a movement in Kuwait, an Islamic movement that demands—and this movement is not unique to other Islamic countries, for all Islamic countries demand that their rulers return their laws to conformity with the Islamic Shari'ah. Among these laws are the laws of personal status. It appears that many magazines and newspapers are dealing with such laws and demanding that the state there return this law to what conforms to Islam; that is, the Book and the Sunnah. It is among the wonders and curiosities that some enthusiasts for Islam stand between the state and achieving this Islamic demand, which is returning the law of personal status to the Book and the Sunnah. He relies on a basis that is correct in itself, but it is not evidence that supports his demand. It is, as was said long ago, "a word of truth intended to be falsehood." What is this truth he relies on?
He says: "Islam is a whole that cannot be divided, and it is obligatory for Muslims to adopt Islam as a whole that cannot be divided." This is a correct call, and it is not permissible for any Muslim to doubt it. But here is something we must observe: there is intellectual adoption and there is practical adoption. What is not permissible to hesitate about, and what must be adopted in its entirety, is intellectual adoption. It is not permissible, of course, for us to believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part of it.
As for the practical aspect, it is like the religious obligations related to every Muslim who is accountable. He does what he is able to of them, and ; likewise, the nation, for the nation, as is well known, is nothing but a group of individuals. Just as every individual is obligated to do what he is able to, so the nation is obligated to do what it is able to. If we know this fact, which is a self-evident fact with no doubt in it, then it becomes clear to you that this author has confused thought with action, which should correspond to thought. He is as if he is seeking an Islamic society in which Islam is applied in its entirety, where no part of it, whether small or large, can be left unapplied. This is, of course, an impossible thing to achieve, especially for later Muslims. He now explicitly says: "Before we return the law of personal status to conformity with the Book and the Sunnah, so that we remove from it what contradicts Islam and put in it what Islam commands, before all of this, we must reform the society. We must reform this society and prepare it to accept these rulings and these laws."
This is beautiful speech in reality, and this preparation is what we call for before focusing on things we have no way to achieve. Not because if we were able to do it, we would not do it; for this is a very great difference between what we call people to, which is to act on what we are able to in order to resume Islamic life. There is no doubt that this will be step by step, and to the extent that a person or a nation is able. For example, if Islam consists of a hundred rulings, and we are currently living a practical life of ten of them, there is no harm in adding one, then a second, then a third, until they become twenty, thirty, and so on. But to wait until the nation resumes its complete Islamic life among its own people and individuals, and to let the ruling proceed in contradiction to the Book and the Sunnah, while we are able to amend and change this ruling without any hardship or effort, as is now clear from this movement taking place in Kuwait; accepting the reality of these laws on the pretext that the society is not a complete Islamic society means that the Islamic society will remain incomplete. For there is no doubt that the effort of individuals in reform is less than the effort of governments. It was said, or rather, it is narrated from Uthman that he said: "Indeed, Allah restrains by the ruler what He does not restrain by the Qur'an." If the ruler agrees to change a law to conform to the Islamic Shari'ah, why do we refuse and stand between this reform and its implementation on the pretext that our Islamic reality does not accept this reform? This is a very strange matter!
Years ago, it was known in the law of personal status that if a Muslim divorces his wife three times in one session with one phrase, his wife becomes divorced from him with a major final divorce; that is, as He (the Exalted) said: . Then some of those engaged in Islamic jurisprudence adopted this opinion or this ruling as the opinion of the four schools of jurisprudence, which the masses of Muslims strive to preserve the issues of, and they do not allow anyone to deviate from them, no matter what way they find to deviate. Nevertheless, when these people saw the bad effect of adopting this opinion—that divorce with the phrase of three is three divorces—they returned and adopted an opinion that, until recently, was considered an anomalous and rejected opinion; namely, the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who returned in this issue, about eight centuries ago, to the Sunnah. He said: "Divorce with the phrase of three is only one divorce." Some jurists adopted this and introduced this correct Islamic ruling into the law of personal status. And there are, without doubt—I am not a lawyer, and I have not studied the law of personal status—but I know for certain that there are many rulings like this one that contradict the Islamic Shari'ah, either the Book or the Sunnah or both. What harm did the Islamic society suffer, which has not advanced at all since recently, when this ruling was changed to conform to the Sunnah? It did not harm anything, the society did not become agitated, and the society did not reject it, as the author of this article suggests.