Factionalism?

The Shaykh : And because many people today, among those who claim affiliation to one of the Islamic parties, [it is] not permissible in Islam for there to be parties, because Allah says , so it is obligatory for all Muslims to be one single party. But unfortunately, the circumstances that Muslims lived under, under the various forms of colonialism, from British colonialism to French, Dutch, Spanish, and so on, all these colonialisms instilled the traditions and customs of the colonizers. And these customs may differ in some aspects and agree in a large part, including parties, except for the misguidance of the communists, who suspended factionalism for a period of time, except for one party, which is the Communist Party. Then it became clear to them, after a while, in accordance with the saying of the Exalted , that communism is false from its origin. Perhaps you are all listening to the news now regarding the retreat of the communists from their misguidance. The point is, but they, as a public, and before communism, they accepted factionalism, and indeed they consider it part of what they call democracy, meaning justice. The point is, there is no party in Islam except one, and they are those who hold fast to what we mentioned earlier, to the Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and to the methodology of the righteous predecessors. Due to the colonization of these colonizers of the Muslims, some principles contrary to Islam spread among them. Among these parties, there is an Islamic party in this land and elsewhere, which claims that it is not permissible for the Messenger (peace be upon him) to exercise independent legal reasoning; they claim that the Messenger does not exercise independent legal reasoning. But this claim is rejected by many texts. And those who made this claim, their intention, and Allah knows best, is good, but in terms of the outcome, it is bad, because it resembles the intention of many of the old sects that denied explicit texts in the Book and the Sunnah, because they were under the illusion that holding fast to these texts and to their apparent meaning, as they claim, leads to the denial of the Shari'ah or to criticizing one of its aspects. So those who say that the Messenger (peace be upon him) does not exercise independent legal reasoning will say, "How do we know that if we take one of the opinions of the Messenger in which he exercised independent legal reasoning, that he may have erred?" Here comes the answer: If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is more deserving of independent legal reasoning, and closer to hitting the mark, and to be rewarded with that doubled reward. So why do we say that the Messenger does not exercise independent legal reasoning when he actually did? But we say that if he exercised independent legal reasoning and erred, the revelation would quickly correct him. This is what I mentioned earlier: , meaning I am revealed a legal ruling or a correction of a Prophetic independent legal reasoning. So then, we are safe from being followers of the Messenger in something in which he exercised independent legal reasoning and erred, may he be kept safe from that.