Commentary on his statement: "Patching together the rulings of Islam with those of other systems is a matter that Islam does not approve of and does not accept."

The Shaykh : Finally, he says: "Patching together the rulings of Islam with those of other systems is a matter that Islam does not approve of and does not accept."
This is correct, but this is intentional patching that Islam does not accept. As for now, ten percent of Islam is applied, you do not accept applying eleven or twelve percent, and you are not satisfied with this shortcoming as he says at the end of his speech!! But listen now to the end of the matter: "What has preceded of facts falls within the framework of faith in this religion which Allah wanted to be the methodology of our entire life, its small and large, its private and public." Look at this reservation!! "And we hope that it is not understood from what preceded that we reject the Personal Status Law, but rather we wanted to clarify the vital field in which this law exercises its supremacy and authority and bears its fruit, and if this desired goal is not achieved in the required form; then we accept the Personal Status Law, and we demand its continuation and we defend this continuation in its form."
What do you think of this statement? This is the result of the request, because we do not accept Islam, and it is not permissible for us to adopt it, except as a whole that cannot be divided. So when is Islam achieved as a whole that cannot be divided? In one sudden step, or in stages? In my opinion, this stems first from two things: first, from not studying the Sunnah; because when a person studies the Sunnah and understands the society in which the Companions lived, and in which the rulings and the legal penalties were applied, he cannot write such words and say that we must prepare the atmosphere before establishing the legal penalties. This is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not do. We know that there were, for example, very few wealthy individuals: 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf, 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, and Abu Talhah al-Ansari on some days. Even when he performed Hajj with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) during the Farewell Pilgrimage, one hundred thousand people performed Hajj with him, and none of them brought sacrificial animals except a few wealthy individuals among them. These individuals were the ones who remained with their intention of combining 'Umrah and Hajj; because they brought the sacrificial animals. And he (peace be upon him) said: . One hundred thousand of the Companions, among whom there were only a very, very few wealthy individuals!!
And from here you also understand the call of some Islamic writers, unfortunately, and this is an effect of the socialism that invaded the Islamic lands, that it is necessary to bring the rich and the poor closer together at the expense of what? The wealth of the rich. So we say: Did the Messenger (peace be upon him) do this bringing closer or did he not do it? The answer: He certainly did not do it. The question derived from the previous fiqh of Ibn Taymiyyah returns: Was the condition present in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) for bringing these rich people, who are excessively rich as they say, and whose number is small, closer to the many poor people? Was the condition for bringing these few and those many closer present? We see that it was present. Why did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) not do that? Because Allah does not want to compel people with more than what Allah has obligated upon them. He obligated zakah on their wealth, and then from another aspect, He encouraged them to give charity and to volunteer. So we obligate what Allah has obligated, and we encourage what Allah has encouraged, and we do not mix this with that.
So this person came to the error from two sides:
The first side: It is that he did not perhaps recall, maybe he read and passed by these events lightly, but he did not saturate himself with knowledge of the social situation that was in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), in which these limits of the Shari'ah were applied.
The second error: That he imagines the achievement of Islam in one blow, and this is impossible. He is now calling for the full adoption of Islam, this is correct, but how is it applied like this? It must be done in stages.
This side clarifies for you the importance of understanding Islam on the methodology of the righteous Salaf, and the other side opposes this direction. This direction has two parts; the first part is correct, and it is a call to resume Islamic life and apply it in all aspects of the rulings of the Shari'ah, but the second direction—and it is the error—is delaying the reform of some rulings that contradict the Shari'ah until this full application of Islam is achieved. This is a matter that completely contradicts the true matter.