Is it permissible to hold peaceful demonstrations and marches to express the right to opinion? If the answer is no, please cite the evidence.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Is it permissible to hold peaceful demonstrations and marches to express the demands of the Islamic people? If the answer is no, please cite the evidence, because holding these marches is of the nature of maslahah mursalah, and whatever is necessary for the fulfillment of an obligation is itself obligatory. The original ruling for means is permissibility until a text comes prohibiting them. Also, is holding these demonstrations and marches in accordance with the guidelines mentioned by Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Khalq in his book "The Muslims and Political Action"?
The Shaykh : It is true that if means do not contradict the Shari'ah, their original ruling is permissibility; there is no dispute in this. However, if the means consist of imitating non-Islamic methodologies, then these means become un-Islamic. Going out for demonstrations, or declaring satisfaction or dissatisfaction, or expressing support or rejection of certain decisions or laws, this system aligns with the system that says the rule belongs to the people, from the people, and for the people. But when the society is Islamic, there is no need for demonstrations; rather, it requires establishing the argument against the ruler who contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah, as is narrated. I say this as it is narrated, referring to some of what is narrated, but in any case, it clarifies a known historical fact: that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), when he stood as a preacher urging people to abandon excessive bridal gifts, the narration is authentic up to this point.
The point in the other narration, which has weakness in its chain, is that a woman said, "O 'Umar, the matter is not in your hand. Allah the Exalted and Majestic entrusted in the Noble Qur'an[An-Nisa 4:20] So how do you say that it is not permissible except four hundred dirhams as a bridal gift for your daughters?" If the narration is authentic, 'Umar's response was: "Umar erred and the woman was correct". Thus, the Islamic society does not need these systems and the means that follow from them. When the Islamic society is realized, a person can enter and convey his opinion and argument to the wali al-amr (the one in authority) or at least to his deputy, and there is no need to appear in such demonstrations that we have received from some of the customs and systems of the Westerners. As is the case now, we imitate the Westerners in many of their customs and traditions, so it is necessary to distinguish between what is permissible to take from them and what is not permissible. For example, we take some means from them; if these means lead to a lawful purpose, or at least a permissible one, and do not revive the meaning of imitating the disbelievers, then it is permissible. An example of this can be recalled in two instances: one is authentic in its narration, and the other has weakness. The authentic one is what came in "al-Bukhari and Muslim" in the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the story of his departure with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as a traveler and his stopping at a place. When morning came and he went out to relieve himself, al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah wanted to pour water for the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) ablution, so he poured on him until the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) came to roll up his sleeve. The point is that al-Mughirah was wearing a tight-sleeved Roman robe, so he could not roll up his arms due to its tightness, so he took it off and threw the robe over his shoulder until the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed his ablution and washed his arms. The point is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) wore a Roman robe, which means that if a garment from the clothes of the disbelievers is attributed to them and does not contain an apparent imitation or following of them, it is permissible, and the benefit of repelling harm and the like that follows from it.
Similarly, the second example, which I mention for its fame in the biography, even if it is not established in the hadithic manner, is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to descend in a place other than the trench. When al-Habab ibn al-Mundhir said, "Is this a revelation or is it opinion, war, and strategy?" he said, "No, it is opinion." He said, "Then we will descend in another place." Now... he says, but there is a benefit. This is narrated in the biography and is authentic, but it has no connection to our example. The example is digging the trench, where Salman, as narrated, said that when they were besieged in a certain country, they would surround the country with a trench. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) agreed to that because of the clear benefit, free from any harm. By this system, we receive the customs of the Westerners. Now we come to another example: there are people who wear different jackets, and there is no objection to that. But what is the meaning of wearing pants? What is the meaning of putting on graphics? There is no benefit from that except imitating the customs of the Westerners and being influenced by their traditions. So it is necessary to distinguish between what is in harmony with Islam and its principles and rules, and what is repulsive and abhorrent to it. So these demonstrations are not an Islamic means that indicates the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the Muslim peoples, because they have other means by which they can proceed. What comes to my mind is that in reality, when we approve of such demonstrations, it is as if we imagine that the Islamic society, after it actually becomes an Islamic society, will remain in its systems and customs on the custom of the Westerners. Everything will change, and the social situation in the Islamic society will be in no need of such demonstrations. And finally, the truth is that these demonstrations change the system of rule if the organizers are insistent on that. No, and how many demonstrations have taken place and occurred, and many, many people were killed in them, and then the matter remained as it was before the demonstrations. So we do not see that this is a means that falls under the category that the original ruling of things is permissibility, because it is from the traditions of the Westerners.
The Shaykh : It is true that if means do not contradict the Shari'ah, their original ruling is permissibility; there is no dispute in this. However, if the means consist of imitating non-Islamic methodologies, then these means become un-Islamic. Going out for demonstrations, or declaring satisfaction or dissatisfaction, or expressing support or rejection of certain decisions or laws, this system aligns with the system that says the rule belongs to the people, from the people, and for the people. But when the society is Islamic, there is no need for demonstrations; rather, it requires establishing the argument against the ruler who contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah, as is narrated. I say this as it is narrated, referring to some of what is narrated, but in any case, it clarifies a known historical fact: that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), when he stood as a preacher urging people to abandon excessive bridal gifts, the narration is authentic up to this point.
The point in the other narration, which has weakness in its chain, is that a woman said, "O 'Umar, the matter is not in your hand. Allah the Exalted and Majestic entrusted in the Noble Qur'an
and you have given one of them a great amount [in gifts], do not take [back] from it anything
فإن آتيتم إحداهن قنطارًا فلا تأخذوا منه شيئًاSimilarly, the second example, which I mention for its fame in the biography, even if it is not established in the hadithic manner, is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to descend in a place other than the trench. When al-Habab ibn al-Mundhir said, "Is this a revelation or is it opinion, war, and strategy?" he said, "No, it is opinion." He said, "Then we will descend in another place." Now... he says, but there is a benefit. This is narrated in the biography and is authentic, but it has no connection to our example. The example is digging the trench, where Salman, as narrated, said that when they were besieged in a certain country, they would surround the country with a trench. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) agreed to that because of the clear benefit, free from any harm. By this system, we receive the customs of the Westerners. Now we come to another example: there are people who wear different jackets, and there is no objection to that. But what is the meaning of wearing pants? What is the meaning of putting on graphics? There is no benefit from that except imitating the customs of the Westerners and being influenced by their traditions. So it is necessary to distinguish between what is in harmony with Islam and its principles and rules, and what is repulsive and abhorrent to it. So these demonstrations are not an Islamic means that indicates the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the Muslim peoples, because they have other means by which they can proceed. What comes to my mind is that in reality, when we approve of such demonstrations, it is as if we imagine that the Islamic society, after it actually becomes an Islamic society, will remain in its systems and customs on the custom of the Westerners. Everything will change, and the social situation in the Islamic society will be in no need of such demonstrations. And finally, the truth is that these demonstrations change the system of rule if the organizers are insistent on that. No, and how many demonstrations have taken place and occurred, and many, many people were killed in them, and then the matter remained as it was before the demonstrations. So we do not see that this is a means that falls under the category that the original ruling of things is permissibility, because it is from the traditions of the Westerners.