If there are no Shari'ah violations in acting, and the purpose is only to convey the meanings of the religion through it, is it permissible in that case if it achieves benefits?

The questioner : ... out of fear of standing at ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : These are purely worldly matters, the acting out of the message.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : So?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Acting, yes, but what is the purpose of acting? Is it not guidance?

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : Okay, is guidance ordinary matters? Or ordinary matters?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... What is built upon a defective foundation is defective. You want, you want, before you mean to proceed in speech, the word you say, you confirm it. First, you said these are ordinary matters, while they are acts of worship and not ordinary.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Okay, may Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : So?

The questioner : I mean, this acting, let us suppose we want to convey a specific idea to a specific group of people.

The Shaykh : Fine.

The questioner : So this ... for example, we invent a specific story with a specific style, and a group of committed youth act it out, without the Shari'ah violations I mentioned, not in the Companions or in Islamic history, but as I mentioned, and not ... but merely conveying an Islamic meaning and intent through acting, and it would be this ... Islam and ... meaning it is necessary in the field of da'wah because there is a large group of Muslims who frequent theaters. We do not say we participate in theaters where corruption is displayed, but we say we can display some purposeful plays that can cast into the hearts of those who frequent the theater and acting some meanings that may ... da'wah ... ?

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Theoretical talk and reality are two different things. Now, where are these plays displayed? Where are they displayed? In places, meaning Islamic theaters, with absolutely no violation of the Shari'ah?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : So? You are speaking theoretically.

The questioner : ... If hypothetically ... for example, the performances ... and it would be ... .

The Shaykh : Fine.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The research is not theoretical, the research is practical. And I have a method in answering that removes the dispute between the two. A questioner asks me, I say, my brother, this questioner is theoretical, not practical. His hypothesis is not realistic. He says, hypothetically. I say, the answer to this question is permissible hypothetically. The answer is permissible hypothetically, or obligatory hypothetically. What is the benefit of this? We want to address reality. All these additions you made of reservations regarding not violating the Shari'ah, do you imagine a play that has no lie to link the story parts together and act them out? Do you imagine this?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... .

The questioner : But we ... .

The Shaykh : When you want, when you want to put a story for people to act out for them

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Is this story realistic or fictional?

The questioner : No, fictional.

The Shaykh : Fictional, and people understand it is fiction? Okay, what is the benefit of engaging people with fiction when we have truths from the Shari'ah that discipline people better than fiction disciplines them? If we said we are better than what disciplines fiction, this is the path of the mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah), and this is what I clarified earlier. They do not have what we have of realistic spiritual treatments that have no connection to fiction. So why then impose fictional issues when we have Quranic stories and Prophetic hadiths?

The questioner : ... presented to you ... a practical matter?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : What happens with committed Muslim youth, meaning ... to tell the truth, if prohibition of acting is absolute, it means that ... .

The Shaykh : And was my speech absolute? Or was there first imitating the disbelievers, and second, that there must be lying, and there must be men imitating women and women imitating men, etc.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, because there is no play, as I believe, that does not have a Shari'ah violation. When you put me before a reality, and you cannot, nor can anyone else, a play that people know is fiction within fiction, and that this play is needed by Muslims, and that what they have of the guidance of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not sufficient. Why did I mention the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and the document he took from the Jews? Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) benefited us by saying that Musa (peace be upon him), who is the one who spoke to Allah, if he were in our time, would not be able to do anything but be a follower of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Why? Because the Shari'ah gathered and was more comprehensive, all the goals and all the lawful means, so in it is good and blessing. So I did not say absolutely, I said acting is not permissible. I clarified why and what are the reasons that make me say this.
And perhaps this prompts me to also remind you of the hadith of the Companion whose name I do not recall now. The important thing is that they were on a journey and they passed by a tree on which the mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah) hung their weapons. So they said, or some of them said, "O Messenger of Allah, make for us a Dhat Anwa like their Dhat Anwa." He (peace and blessings be upon him) said and in a narration And every person who has some understanding distinguishes strongly between the Jews' saying to Musa (peace be upon him), "Make for us a god like their gods," and the saying of some of the Messenger's (peace and blessings be upon him) Companions to him, "Make for us a Dhat Anwa like their Dhat Anwa." Those asked Musa (peace be upon him) to take for them an idol to worship besides Allah, meaning they asked for shirk (associating partners with Allah) and for him to support and help them in that. But the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do any of that at all. All that was the case was, "O Messenger of Allah, make for us a tree to hang our weapons on, as the mushrikin have such a tree." So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) rejected the verbal similarity of their saying "Make for us a Dhat Anwa" with the verbal similarity of the Jews' saying with the very great difference between the meaning of their saying "Make for us a Dhat Anwa" and the Jews' saying So what is the fiqh (jurisprudence) of this hadith? The fiqh of this hadith is cutting off the root of Muslims imitating the disbelievers, even with words that have correct or at least permissible meanings, but the word resembles the word of the disbelievers. So what if we take from these disbelievers means they invented and the reason for them? You did not stop at this reason you mentioned at all. What drives the disbelievers to these plays? They do not have, my brother, the spiritual food that we have. So when we take from them these means, this is one thing, and our taking means like cars and airplanes and the like is another thing, which you indicated in your speech and described as ordinary matters. Riding a car and an airplane and the like are truly purely ordinary matters and do not enter into the subject of his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying But the plays, glory be to Allah, are like cars and airplanes?! Or the motive for plays is poverty of the spirit, and the motive for us not to do plays is spiritual singing. How great is the difference between this and that. Do you have ... another?

The questioner : ... May Allah bless you ... .

The Shaykh : Please proceed.

The questioner : ... There are many questions.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, he says there are many questions.

The questioner : Many questions, may Allah bless you.
Another questioner: ...

The Shaykh : That ... religious, may Allah bless you. Some of it is necessary and some of it is not necessary.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Did you understand my answer? I started the answer by saying, there are things that are necessary and there are things that are not necessary. It is best to say that they are supplementary. If the necessary things are displayed on television, it is a permissible means, and we link it to the play of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). But if television becomes a display for everything, not just what is not permissible as is observed today, but also what is permissible but Muslims do not need it, then we do not care about this either, exactly like this example. Let us suppose hypotheses and our reality is the opposite. Why do we not ask, "What is the ruling on the television we see in the Arab world today?" Instead, we ask, "What is the ruling on, for example, scientific sessions or scientific seminars, etc.?" So we ask about something that can be permissible and ignore things that cannot be permissible, but are certainly not permissible. So it is as if the matter is an attempt to smooth out this reality, and as it is said, with its flaws and all.
I will give you an example. To this day, has any state or, for instance, a television body ever presented to the Muslims a realistic image of a Muslim scholar performing the rites of Hajj alone so that the Muslims who perform Hajj at the House of Allah the Exalted, who do not know the rites of Hajj and have not been able to learn them, would not return as that old Arab poet said about such people: "I did not perform Hajj, but the camels did"? Has any television channel ever broadcast the rites of Hajj by a learned man so that the entire Islamic world could learn the rites of Hajj calmly and with deliberation? I have not seen this, nor have I heard of it. And even simpler than that: has any scholar ever prayed the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) as he said, displaying the manner of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) prayer on the television screen so that people, and scholars especially, could learn how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray? No, people do not even dream of such ideas yet. So why do we not care about something that would definitely benefit the Muslims? On the contrary, we broadcast what is permissible and what is not. I say that it is not permissible to broadcast on television anything other than examples like these.