Continuation of the discussion on the ruling concerning those who permit entering parliament for the sake of change

The student: Far from the issue of Shaykh Abd al-Rahman, your opinion is a general statement, which is better for the benefit, meaning, so that the listener does not think we are talking about a specific person. We are talking about a methodology, and that is better.

The Shaykh : How?
The student: I say we do not bring up the name of Shaykh Abd al-Rahman because this is a methodology that is not specific toThe Shaykh : Abd al-Rahman. Many, I mean, of the Muslims adopt this thought.

The Shaykh: Yes, but we are forced to speak about Abd al-Rahman so that we do not say in him what is not in him. This is important.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh: That is, .
The student: All right.

The Shaykh: So when I drew your attention to the fact that Abd al-Rahman, I asked you, Abd al-Rahman, my brother, he met with us, that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is disbelief and shirk (associating partners with Allah), and so on. So your saying "theoretically" confused me, I mean.
The student: I said, I withdrew it, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah guide you.
The student: A person is not infallible.

The Shaykh: I want to connect the first part of the speech to the end. What is the end? You withdrew the statement. Why did you withdraw it? Because it was an error.
The student: Theologically, it is more comprehensive.

The Shaykh: Allow me, do not open a new problem for me. You tell me "theologically, it is more comprehensive." Let us stay with the first point for now. Why did I stop at the word "theoretically"? Because I understood from you the opposite of what you intended with this word, correct?
The student: I said, I withdraw it because theologically it is correct, I correct it.

The Shaykh: My brother, may Allah reward you. The discussion has a system, it has a style. When I finish my speech, it is your turn to speak. I have not finished yet.
The student: I spoke with Abu Abd al-Rahman, excuse me, Shaykh.

The Shaykh: What did you speak with him about? I do not know...
The student: Please, O Shaykh, may Allah honor you, please.
Another student: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
The student: He is saying, my Shaykh, now you have an image of, I mean, our brother Hussein says he agrees with you in the impermissibility of entering parliamentary elections.

The Shaykh: All right.
The student: But he differs with you in the 'illah (operative cause). You see the 'illah, and he sees, I mean, he wants to discuss with you. It is a kind of research and discussion.

The Shaykh: There is no objection...
The student: I mean, Shaykh, you are speaking for five minutes... he speaks for five minutes. Everyone gives his right to speak.
Another student : He is putting forward a theory, I do not know. You, my professor and my Shaykh, are speaking about what you believe regarding the 'illah, then you give him the space to speak, then he speaks about what he has, and so on. But there must be interjections, I mean, I have, my Shaykh.
The student: As an introduction, I explain what I have in five minutes, then the Shaykh speaks for five minutes, and the interjections come after the speech.

The Shaykh: Is this speech theoretical or practical?
The student: Shaykh, we have just started.

The Shaykh: We have not started yet. We have not agreed now. We are on the way to agreement. You say in five minutes you speak, and the one who wants to respond to you speaks for five minutes. Is this theoretical or practical?
The student: The speech.

The Shaykh: What do you mean by saying this?
The student: The proposal that you are putting forward.
Another student : Practical. There is no doubt it is practical.

The Shaykh: The objections that you are throwing are enough to take five minutes of time. I am now asking you a clear question. Your proposal is that you speak for five minutes, then your companion who also wants to speak speaks for five minutes. Is this theoretical or practical?
The student: This speech is theoretical until it is applied.

The Shaykh: Is this the answer to my question?!
The student: That is, these five minutes are enough to put forward what you have, or does the matter exceed this? The Shaykh thinks it exceeds, by saying "the speech," this now takes more. Yes, so five minutes are not...
Another student : This is enough, if Allah wills. Five minutes, I speak.
The student: I mean, he wants, Shaykh, to allocate him five minutes to put forward what he has.

The Shaykh: My brother, he has complicated his situation. I am not saying about myself that I am not bound by this theoretical system, because the practice...
The student: So, without a limit, he puts forward what he has.

The Shaykh: That is my intention.
The student : Yes, please go ahead.

The Shaykh: But my intention from all of this is to draw his attention that we be realistic, not imaginary. When he says, "we speak for five minutes," well, if the five minutes are not enough, what does that equal? The time will be over.
The student: I mean, five minutes is not a limit, but an approximation.
Another student : An approximation, yes.

The Shaykh: My brother, let each of us speak as I told you earlier, more than once in this session. The speech is yours, I am silent. If I want to speak, I ask for permission. Likewise, I, if the speech is mine, I speak, and you do not cut off my speech. You raise your hand, your finger, your two fingers, it does not matter.
The student : If Allah wills.

The Shaykh: The important thing is to draw attention to the fact that you have a question... this is the practical one. But, by Allah, five minutes or ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, this is theoretical, not practical.
The student: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
The student : ... .

The Shaykh: Leave it, my brother, the message, and put forward the topic you want to speak about, and speak...
The student: In the name of Allah, and praise is to Allah. We praise Him, seek His help, and seek His guidance, and we seek His forgiveness. And we seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and from the badness of our deeds. Whom Allah guides, there is no one who can misguide him, and whom He misguides, there is no one who can guide him. And I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). As for what follows: The issue is, truly, what is the difference between the da'wah (calling others to Islam) of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) and the da'wah now, the Salafi da'wah? Is there a difference? Since Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him), in the book of Tawhid (the oneness of Allah), spoke about the issue of taghut and clarifying its types. He said (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding the issue of taghut:

The Shaykh: I ask for brevity. We do not argue with what was said unless we differ. So now this is a proposal. You put forward your idea in the briefest expression, and we do not argue with "so-and-so said" and "so-and-so said" unless, may Allah forbid, we start to differ. Then you argue with "Allah said," "the Messenger of Allah said," "the Salaf (the earliest generations) said," "Ibn Taymiyyah said," "Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said," "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said." You put forward the idea that you adopt. If there is agreement on something that needs to be expanded? Is there something that needs to be expanded?
The student : ... .

The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The student : I understood.

The Shaykh: I did not understand your answer. Is there something that needs to be expanded? Say yes, say no...
The student: We expand on which topic? I have not put forward the topic, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Subhan Allah (Glory be to Allah). Which topic do you want to touch upon? Your topic now is titled Tawhid (the oneness of Allah). Which topic do you want to put forward? Put forward your opinion, your 'aqidah (creed) in it, without "what so-and-so said" and "what so-and-so said."
The student: No... the evidence, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Okay, we agreed now. If one is speaking as I am doing now with you, I asked you for permission. Now I am speaking, and you cut off my speech, and so on. We will never be able to understand each other. I have a proposal now. I ask you, what is your opinion of this proposal? It is that the topic of Tawhid (the oneness of Allah) cannot be imagined to have a disagreement between true Salafis. There may be a side disagreement. Okay, if one of the parties puts it forward in a concise way, and there is absolutely no difference in any aspect of the research being put forward, is there a need to expand on it? A question. I am waiting for the answer.
The student: Yes, there is a need if the matter is confusing or if...

The Shaykh: My brother, what is my proposal? May Allah guide you. My proposal is if you put forward the 'aqidah (creed) in Tawhid (the oneness of Allah), and then we are in agreement on that, you say now there is a problem. We say, if you put forward your idea, and we are, praise be to Allah, in agreement on it, is there a need to expand on it?
The student: No, if we are in agreement, no.

The Shaykh: So there is no need for expansion. In advance, there is no need to say "Shaykh so-and-so said" and "the scholar so-and-so said," and so on, except in the case of disagreement, except in the case of confusion, correct?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.