The Shaykh spoke about a jurisprudential and foundational issue, which is: it is not permissible for a pious Muslim to speak on a legal issue regarding prohibition or permissibility, or regarding declaring someone a disbeliever.

The Shaykh : The praise is due to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our own souls and the badness of our deeds. Whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide, and whomsoever He misguides, none can guide. 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. As for what follows, the best of speech is the speech of Allah, the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and the worst of matters are their innovations. Every innovation is a religious innovation, every religious innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire. There is no doubt that the problem of the hour is this trial, and it is true that it has entered every home of the Muslims. Before we offer our opinion on it, and although the discussion of it has been repeated over and over, it is necessary to at least summarize and shorten the speech on this topic, the topic of the hour. However, before that, I must speak about a jurisprudential and foundational issue that the majority of Muslims, both past and present, have fallen into contradicting, especially in this trial. This introduction is that it is not permissible for a Muslim who fears Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and is mindful of Him to speak on a legal issue regarding prohibition or permissibility, let alone regarding declaring someone a disbeliever or misguiding them, except with clear proof from Allah and His Messenger. This is based on His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He) in His Book: . It is known from the principles of jurisprudence that legal issues revolve around four established principles, which are certain for the people of the Sunnah and the community in truth: the Book and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is the authentic one, not everything that is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is authentic. Therefore, we say in the second principle: the authentic Sunnah. Then, scholarly consensus, knowing that not every claimed consensus is a correct, actual consensus. The consensus that is a proof is what corresponds to the statement of some scholars, or what is known from the religion by necessity. This is the evidence, or reference, or the third source of the four sources. The fourth and last is analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning has what is obvious and what is hidden. When we know that the most subtle of these references, or these four principles, is analogical reasoning, and we know that some of it is hidden, meaning it does not appear to all scholars, let alone others, then we take from this introduction the following result: it is not permissible for a Muslim, even if he is a student of knowledge, to say "I see such and such" unless he has an explicit text from the Book of Allah and from the authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), as we said. Here, a strong student of knowledge may say "I believe or see such and such" based on the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) such and such, or the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and he mentions it. But to claim or adopt an opinion on an issue that has no explicit text from the Book of Allah or from the authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), where there may be scholarly consensus or analogical reasoning, resorting to and relying on these two sources is the affair of specialized scholars in the study of the Book and the Sunnah. Only they are able to establish a correct consensus, and only they are able to analogize the like with the like and the equivalent with the equivalent. As for those other than them, students of knowledge, let alone the general public who have no connection to knowledge at all, these and those are not permitted to intervene in such issues that are built either on scholarly consensus or on analogical reasoning. If we know this introduction, which is an introduction that no scholar can dispute, because it is an established matter with no disagreement in it...