What is the difference between unlegislated public interest and religious innovation? And do processions and demonstrations fall under unlegislated public interests?

'Abd al-Malik: All right, Shaykh, we want you to distinguish between unlegislated public interest and religious innovation, in light of what happened with us, where one of the students of knowledge permitted these processions and demonstrations on the grounds that they are among the unlegislated public interests. What is your opinion?

The Shaykh : We have spoken a great deal about unlegislated public interests, that they sometimes differ from religious innovation and sometimes coincide with it. The first point of distinction between public interest and innovation is that public interest has no connection to pure acts of worship. From here, a clear distinction can be made between the innovation that is encompassed by misguidance and the public interest that may or may not be encompassed by it. This is the first point.
Second, it is not the case that a means occurs, and it is assumed that it achieves a public interest for the Muslims, so merely because this means achieves this public interest, that is not what justifies Muslims to cling to it or to act upon it. I have not seen a comprehensive and exclusive statement on this issue like what I saw from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in his well-known book, *Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ahl al-Jahim*. He divides public interest into very reasonable categories. He says: First, if the public interest that is intended to be achieved by a means that Muslims want to hold onto, one should look at this means as a cause for achieving that public interest. Did this cause exist and was it established in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or not? So this is of two types: a cause that existed and a cause that did not exist. He says: If the cause that leads to a claimed public interest, this cause was established in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and then he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not act upon it, then acting upon it is an innovation. Why? Because the necessitating factor for acting upon this cause was established in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) because it achieves a public interest. Who is capable of assessing this public interest? Without doubt, the first one to assess it is the one upon whom revelation was sent, which is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And his assessment of it, whether affirming or denying it, is correct one hundred percent. As for the other people, they may hit the mark or they may miss. So if we imagine a cause that was established in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and it achieves a logical, rational public interest, but he did not act upon it, then it is not permissible to act upon it, and acting upon it would be legislation other than what Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) legislated, and it would undoubtedly be an innovation of misguidance. We can give some examples of this that are mentioned in books of jurisprudence, and especially books of innovation that warn against it: for example, the adhan for the two Eid prayers. The adhan is a cause for informing Muslims of the entry of the time of prayer. This is a public interest, but we find that the Messenger (peace be upon him) legislated the adhan for the Muslims for the five prayers, excluding the other prayers, such as the Eids, for example, the prayer for rain, the prayer for the eclipse of the sun and moon, especially at night when people are sleeping. Reason dictates that there must be an adhan here because it achieves a Sharia public interest, which is waking people up from their sleep to realize his saying (peace be upon him): in order to realize this act of worship that the Messenger (peace be upon him) commanded. Reason says we adopt the means of the adhan. In fact, one might say, and this has unfortunately happened, whereas the first one has not happened to this day, that we adopt the phrase called by jurists *tathwib*, which is to say: "Prayer, prayer." This was not done even for the Eids, as came in Sahih Muslim from the hadith of Jabir that no adhan was called and nothing was announced for the Eid prayer. So adopting an adhan for a legislated prayer on the claim that this adhan achieves a public interest, it is said: This adhan is an innovation, even if it actually achieves a public interest. Why? Because this cause necessitating acting upon it was established in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and yet he did not adopt it or legislate it for people. Now, we come to an example related to the situation of Islamic states today, except what Allah wills. It is known that most states do not adopt the system of collecting funds prescribed in Islam, such as collecting zakat on livestock and fruits, and the like. So what do they do today regarding the establishment of the state and its entity and its preservation? They impose...? And they levy taxes on the masses. Without doubt, these taxes that they impose achieve a public interest for the nation, a public interest for the state. Is it permissible to act upon them? The answer is we say: No. Why? Because there is what takes the place of this newly introduced means, which is legislated in Islam. And so we return to the second section. We said that Ibn Taymiyyah says: Either the cause was established in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and he did not legislate it for people, in which case it is not permissible to act upon it; or the necessitating factor for acting upon this cause that brings about the public interest occurred. At that point, Ibn Taymiyyah says here also the matter is divided into two sections: either the cause that prompted Muslims to act upon it to achieve a public interest stems from their negligence in applying the Sharia, like the example I mentioned earlier. In that case, this cause is also not accepted, even if it achieves a public interest, because it results from the Muslims' negligence in applying the rulings of the religion. But if that is not stemming from their negligence, but rather from the oppression of some non-Muslim states or governments, for example, then the matter is looked into and the unlegislated public interest is taken into account within the limits of repelling that which befell the Muslims and for which they were not the cause. For example, this example was mentionedThe Shaykh : by al-Shatibi in his great book *al-I'tisam*. For example, a Muslim state is attacked by disbelievers, and without doubt this attack requires preparing a Muslim army to confront the aggression of these disbelievers. So they looked into the treasury and found, in the assessment of experts, that there was not enough to repel the aggression of these disbelievers. At that point, it is obligatory for the Muslim ruler to impose certain percentages of taxes on the rich, each according to his capacity, to repel the onslaught of this attacking non-Muslim state against the lands of Islam. Once the harm is removed, these taxes are removed, because this is a temporary treatment. This is, in my belief, the definitive statement that combines bringing about public interest and repelling harm in determining the legislated public interest and that which is not legislated. This is what I have, and Allah knows best.