Are the means of da'wah (calling to Islam) based on divine text or on independent legal reasoning?

The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. I say here that there is an issue in which the callers to Allah have differed, may He honor them,The Shaykh : both theoretically and practically, which is: Are the means of reformist da'wah, not the means of dissemination, based on what is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or are they not based on divine text?

The Shaykh : I know from these questions in the present age that the answer may clarify the truth, but it may also be exploited. Therefore, I must be detailed. I say that the means are divided into two categories. One category consists of means that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) adopted, and it is not permissible to deviate from them; rather, it is obligatory to adhere to them, just as it is obligatory to adhere to the objectives. The other category consists of means that were not customary or known in his time (peace and blessings be upon him). It is not permissible to accept these absolutely, nor is it permissible to reject them absolutely. Rather, one must be detailed in their assessment. If a means emerged among the Muslims, and the reason for its emergence and their adoption of it was their deviation from some of the rulings of their religion, then this means, even if it achieves an objective, is not permissible to adopt. However, if the means emerged and they were not the cause of its emergence—meaning the cause of its emergence was not their negligence in some of the legal rulings—then if this means achieves a legal objective, it is permissible to adopt it. It is perhaps useful, indeed very necessary, to give an example for each of these. As for the last example, or the last form, or the last type of means, these means that are now before us, some of them have no relation to the Muslims' negligence in performing some of the rulings of their religion. These means, such as the car and the airplane, which bring the far near, and the voice, and so on, I do not say that it is merely permissible to adopt them; rather, I may say that it is obligatory to adopt them, even if only occasionally. But this means that I am giving as an example for the last type of means, where the Muslims are not responsible for its emergence due to their negligence in performing some of their obligations, can now be taken as an example for a type mentioned earlier of what is not prescribed to adopt. Behind this lie issues and jurisprudence that our brothers, the students of knowledge, should be vigilant about, so that the right is not confused with the wrong, and the truth with the falsehood. The loudspeaker for the adhan (call to prayer) is exactly like this means. Why? Because it achieves a prescribed objective. This prescribed objective is derived from some of the authentic hadiths related to the adhan. Since we are now linking this newly emerged means to the adhan, perhaps you, as students of knowledge with me, remember that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) migrated from Makkah to al-Madinah, the adhan had not yet been prescribed. So he held a consultative council to adopt a means to inform them of the entry of the time of prayer. They consulted among themselves and spoke. One said, "Let us strike a gong at the time of prayer." He said, "No, that is the symbol of the Christians." Another said, "Let us blow a horn." He said, "No, that is the symbol of the Jews." Another said, "Let us light a great fire." He said, "No, that is the symbol of the Zoroastrians." So the council ended with nothing. Abdullah ibn Zayd al-Ansari saw in a dream that he was walking in the city, and there was a man standing on a part of a wall, a part of a collapsed wall, where only a little of the foundation remained. He stood on it and put his two fingers in his ears and said, "Allahu Akbar," until the end of the adhan. Then he descended from this wall to the ground and called for the prayer (iqamah). When morning came, he went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) and related his dream to him. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And the point now is: So, one of the prescribed objectives of the adhan is that the mu'adhdhin (caller to prayer) should have a loud, resonant voice so that his voice reaches the farthest place. For that reason, it came in a hadith in al-Bukhari, and this is in the Sunan, the first hadith in the Sunan, in the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. The meaning of the hadith, because I do not remember it now, is that there is no mu'adhdhin who calls the adhan except that he will be witnessed on the Day of Resurrection by a stone or a brick. So, the further his voice reaches, the more reward he gets. Now, the loudspeaker achieves this prescribed objective. So, this is a prescribed means. But look now, and here is the point I referred to earlier: this means is not prescribed for the iqamah (second call), contrary to what the mosques are doing today. They do not distinguish between broadcasting the adhan and the iqamah with a loudspeaker. They do not distinguish because they have not understood the hadith of the dream. When the angel who he saw in the dream called the adhan, he stood on a high place, and when he called the iqamah, he descended to the ground. And the practice of the Muslims, all of them, followed this until before the existence of loudspeakers. In the early days of Islam, there were no these minarets touching the sky. They would climb on the roof of the mosque and call the adhan. Did they do so for the iqamah? The answer is no. They would call the iqamah inside the mosque. Why? Because the objective of the adhan is to inform those outside the mosque, and the objective of the iqamah is to inform those present in the mosque. So, now we have used the loudspeaker for the iqamah as we use it for the adhan, and we have contradicted the Sunnah. So, it is a means with two aspects: from one angle, it is permissible to adopt it, and from another angle, it is not permissible to adopt it. How can we distinguish such a precise distinction? A newly emerged means can be used for what is prescribed and cannot be used for what is not prescribed. That is the jurisprudence that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) called for people to seek, in the general text, he said: In the specific text related to Abdullah ibn Abbas, he said: So it was so. He was a translator of the Qur'an and a jurist among the jurists of Islam. Therefore, we advise the enthusiastic students of knowledge, our brothers whom we know and our other brothers whom we believe in in their absence, we advise them to spare their efforts and take advantage of their youth in expanding their knowledge, so that they do not fall into pitfalls where they contradict Islam under the pretext that the means differ according to time and place. We say, yes, the means differ according to time and place, but it is not good to apply them according to the Shari'ah except by one who is a jurist in the Book and the Sunnah. I say, acknowledging and following the saying of the scholars, that from the blessing of knowledge is attributing every statement to its say. This precise detail that you heard from me earlier, the credit does not go to my jurisprudence. I am only following those who came before me, who opened for me this precise understanding regarding the means, and that is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him).