The people have differed, O Shaykh, in the means of da'wah into three groups, so we ask you to clarify the truth in that.

Al-Halabi : One of the brothers, the Shaykh, called me from Riyadh asking me to ask you a question.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : This question is, in its essence, important, and there has been a lot of talk about it in recent years, as there has been a lot of talk in general about da'wah and what is related to it, connected to it, and around it, and so on. It is the issue of the means of da'wah. People's statements today regarding the means of da'wah to Allah differ, roughly, into three principles or statements. The first statement is that the means of da'wah are based on textual evidence (taqwiyyah) in their origin and their branches. The second statement is that the means of da'wah are based on independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and the door is open in this regard. The third statement is that the means of da'wah are based on textual evidence in their origin, but their application varies according to the era and its requirements, and the like of that. The brother wants you, O Shaykh, to answer this question with some detail regarding it, and may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : By Allah, what appears to me, and Allah knows best, is that the issue is very closely related to the topic of unrestricted public benefits (masalih mursalah) that we speak about on some occasions, and we clarify the difference between them and what they call "good innovation" (bid'ah hasanah). We say, as a matter of course and legal necessity, based on the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) This is, from one aspect, a generalization of the term "misguidance" (dhalalah) for every newly invented matter in the religion. As for unrestricted public benefits, they are those that relate to newly invented means. Perhaps you remember that when we speak about the topic of unrestricted public benefits, we do not say that they are not legislated, as is the view of some of the followed Islamic schools of jurisprudence, nor do we say that they are to be adopted absolutely. Rather, it is necessary to speak about them in terms of detail. And this detail, and the truth must be said, we derived from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) when he spoke in great detail about this legal principle, which is He affirmed that it is general and that there is no specification for it. Then he turned to the discussion of unrestricted public benefits. He mentioned, and this is, in my belief, the answer to the aforementioned question, that any incident that occurs and is intended to be adopted under the name of realizing an unrestricted public benefit—may Allah reward you, as Allah wills, this is an honor to the Shaykh, he looks and says: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says regarding this incident that is intended to realize an unrestricted public benefit: If the cause for adopting it existed in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and yet he did not adopt this matter, then it is not permissible to adopt it. But if the cause occurred after the Messenger (peace be upon him), and yet it realizes a benefit for the Muslims, he also said that it is not permissible to simply state that it is permissible to adopt it. Rather, one must look into this incident that occurred after the Messenger (peace be upon him): look at the restraint or the motive for adopting it. Is it arising because of the Muslims' negligence in adopting some of the legal rulings that were legislated by explicit text, or not? If it is the first case, then it is not permissible to adopt it, because it leads to the nullification of the rulings of the Shari'ah under the pretext of realizing a legal benefit. But if the other case is that the motive for adopting this incident that realizes an unrestricted public benefit is not the Muslims' negligence, but rather a difference in circumstances, then it is said: As long as this incident does not lead to contradicting a legal ruling, even if it is a means of the legal means, then it is permissible to adopt this incident. I think this issue is the answer to this confusion that I mentioned earlier from some of the students. I give an example to make it clear to you: The cause for the adhan to be legislated for other than the five prayers existed in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, I believe that this cause, regarding some of the annual prayers like the two festivals, 'Id al-Fitr and 'Id al-Adha, and the people are in heedlessness, and the Dhuha prayer—these people need to be reminded by the adhan, or at least by the congregational prayer (salat al-jami'ah). But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do that. So the cause existed for adopting the legislation of an adhan or what serves as its substitute, such as the congregational prayer. Since the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) did not do any of that, then adopting the innovation of an adhan or what serves as its substitute is among the newly invented matters, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do it. Or if it is said that this is a good matter, did it remain hidden from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Far be it from Allah. This is an example and a type known to scholars from old, those who are concerned with distinguishing between the Sunnah and the misguiding innovation. They deny even the statement of the congregational prayer (salat al-jami'ah) because it was not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), let alone the adhan. What is observed today from the jurisprudential aspect are two completely different matters. One is what is advised, which is that none of the followed schools of jurisprudence today say that the adhan for the two festivals is legislated. But some of the schools say that the congregational prayer (salat al-jami'ah) is legislated, even though there is no difference first, and the text came in Sahih Muslim that there was neither an adhan nor the congregational prayer. Another example is an incident that occurred after a period of time, and it undoubtedly realizes a benefit for the Muslims, but this benefit has been provided by the Wise Lawgiver through legal means that achieve the goal that those who innovated new means to achieve the same goal seek, which is taxes. Taxes were imposed and took the place of the means that Allah the Exalted and Majestic legislated to feed the treasury of the Muslims, including zakah, including inheritances that have no heir, including endowments (waqf), including, including, and so on. These rulings were nullified, and the treasuries of the Muslims became empty of money, so they innovated these taxes. It is said regarding them that they are unlegislated means because they nullify the legislated means. In light of this explanation, the answer to that question is clear.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you with good, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And you,
Al-Halabi : It is not a problem to ask about the means of da'wah: are they based on textual evidence or independent legal reasoning, or so on.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
Al-Halabi : I said, O our Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good, the answer is clear, but, by way of adding clarification, if you permit me, I will give examples of what is often spoken about.

The Shaykh : Very well.
Al-Halabi : Many callers to Allah gather people around them through acting, called Islamic acting, and songs called Islamic songs. Sometimes some of them avoid using hand drums, meaning, for example, hand drums, but as songs called Islamic or religious. This exists. And taking trips as a style of continuity, or it is often in this category, like football and sports games and the like of that. And within this circle, there is a lot of talk about these issues as methods by which the youth are utilized and gathered for da'wah and the like of that, and Allah the Exalted knows best.

The Shaykh : I say regarding the incidents, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: The original ruling for acts of worship is prohibition except with evidence, and the original ruling for customs is permissibility except with evidence. The means that I mentioned fall under one of these two rules.