Is it permissible to hold demonstrations to express the demands of Muslim peoples?

The questioner : Is it permissible to hold peaceful demonstrations and marches to express the demands of the Muslim people? If the answer is no, please provide the evidence, because holding these marches falls under the category of unrestricted public interests (maslaha mursalah), and whatever is necessary to fulfill an obligation is itself obligatory. The default ruling for means is permissibility until a text prohibits them. Thus, adhering to these demonstrations or marches is in accordance with the guidelines mentioned byThe Shaykh : 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Khaliq in his thesis, "The Muslims and Political Action"?

The Shaykh : It is true that if means do not contradict the Shari'ah, their default 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 in demonstrations or marches, and declaring dissatisfaction or satisfaction, or expressing support or rejection of certain decisions or laws, is a system that aligns with the concept of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." But when the society is Islamic, there is no need for demonstrations; rather, it requires establishing the proof against the ruler who contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah. As is narrated—and I say this as it is narrated, referring to some of what is reported, though 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 refrain from exorbitant bridal gifts, the narration up to this point is authentic. The point of the other narration, which has weakness in its chain, is that a woman stood up and said: "O 'Umar, the matter is not in your hand. Indeed, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) mentioned in the Noble Qur'an: So how can you say that it is not permissible except four hundred dirhams as a bridal gift for your daughters?" 'Umar's answer, if the narration is authentic, was: "'Umar erred and the woman was correct." The fact is that an Islamic society does not need such systems and the means that follow from them. When an Islamic society is realized, a person can enter and convey his opinion and proof to the one in authority, or at least to his deputy, without needing to appear in such demonstrations that we have received as part of the customs and systems of the Westerners. As is the case now, we imitate the Westerners in many of their customs and traditions without distinguishing between what is permissible for us to take from them and what is not. For example, we take from them some means; if these means lead to a prescribed purpose, or at least a permissible one, and do not involve reviving the meaning of imitating the disbelievers, then this is permissible. The example of this is to recall two instances: one is established in terms of narration, and the other has weakness. The established one is what came in the two Sahihs in the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the story of his departure with him (peace and blessings be upon him) as a traveler and his stopping at a place. When morning came, he went out to relieve himself. Al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah wanted to pour the water for ablution over the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so he poured it over him until the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) came to roll up his sleeve. The point is that al-Mughirah said: "He was wearing a Roman tunic with tight sleeves, so he could not roll up his arms because of their tightness. He took it off and threw the tunic over his shoulders until he (peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution and washed his arms." The point is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) wore a Roman tunic. This means that if there is clothing from the clothes of the disbelievers, attributed to them, and it does not involve the appearance of imitating and copying them, it is permissible because of the benefit of warmth and the like that follows from it. Similarly, the second example, which I mention for its fame in the biography, even though it is not established in the hadithic sense, is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to stop at a place during the Battle of the Trench, when al-Mundhir ibn al-Habab said to him

The questioner : al-Habab ibn al-Mundhir

The Shaykh : al-Habab ibn al-Mundhir: "Is this a revelation, or is it your opinion, war, and strategy?" He said Then he said to him: "Then we will stop at another place." Now I correct myself and say, but there is a benefit in this; it is narrated in the biography but is not authentic. However, it has no connection to our example. The example is digging the trench, where Salman, as narrated from him, said: "They used to, when besieged in a city, surround the city with a trench." The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) agreed to this because of the clear benefit in it, free from any harm. By this standard, we must receive the customs of the Westerners. Now we come to another example: people 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 a graphic? There is no benefit from that except imitating the customs of the Westerners and being influenced by their traditions. Therefore, we must distinguish between what is in harmony with Islam and its principles and rules, and what is prohibited and repulsive. So, these demonstrations are not an Islamic means to express 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 I imagine that the Islamic society, after it actually becomes an Islamic society, will remain in its systems and customs on the customs of the Westerners. Everything will change, and the social situation in the Islamic society will be in no need of such demonstrations. Finally, is it true that if demonstrations are held, this changes the ruling if the organizers are insistent on it? No. How many demonstrations have taken place and occurred, in which many, many, and very many people were killed, 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 rule that the default ruling for things is permissibility, because it is from the traditions of the Westerners.