A discussion between the Shaykh and the student regarding Safer al-Hawali's statements about demonstrations.

The questioner : His statement, O Shaykh, that demonstrations are a method of influence and da'wah (calling to Islam), is this what deviates from the methodology of the pious predecessors?

The Shaykh : My brother, this is a method in which he erred, meaning he deviated from the methodology—subhan Allah—meaning, if a person contradicted a text in the Book or the Sunnah due to an error in ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), does that mean we expel him from the community? This is not what should be done!

The questioner : We are not currently researching whether to expel him from the community, but we are saying that his methodology is not like our Salafi methodology.

The Shaykh : My brother, homosexuality is different for me, different for him, different for him, and so on, because opinions vary. The important thing is, if we disagree, to what do we return? To the Book and the Sunnah. To the Book only? No, and the Sunnah. Book and Sunnah only? No, the methodology of the pious predecessors. Who among all the existing groups agrees with you? No one, except this man and those who revolve around him. If this is a great gain, then if we disagree on some applications, on some means, if he disagrees with me, I agree with Zayd, and he disagrees with Bakr, and so on, this is not a matter for disagreement.

The questioner : I mean, O Shaykh, when he now says that demonstrations are a method of influence and da'wah, this has become a disagreement, and is this disagreement permissible or does it cause harm? Is it not permissible for us to judge him with what is not...

The Shaykh : You are now exaggerating the issue. I am telling you, we do not see it as a prescribed means, he sees it as a prescribed means, and that is it. Enmity and hatred have arisen between us and him.

The questioner : But I record this against him.

The Shaykh : My brother, it is not permissible to record it against him in the sense that you turn people away from him, because your loss will be greater than your gain. Bring forth dozens of this person who spreads the da'wah of the Book and the Sunnah on the methodology of the pious predecessors in the Islamic world, and then Allah has forgiven what he erred in. None of us is without error, and none of us is without being held accountable for it?
Shuqara: What I am saying is, my brother Safer, if he did not speak about Algeria, he spoke as a reporter of what happened in Algeria. He did not speak in support of what happened in Algeria, as evidenced by the fact that he said, "And when they realized that working other than this way led them back from this action because it caused them problems." As for his statement that demonstrations are among the actions, what is his phrase? A method of influence and da'wah. This is truly, as our Shaykh said, the difference in countries and the conditions of people is what makes a person see this as an error and this as correct, or this as influential or not influential. You know that in Algeria, what happened in Algeria did not happen in the recent history of the Muslims. When 85 percent supported the Salvation Front, 85 percent, do you imagine that this support goes away so casually without any reaction? At least the group would respond with a practical response, at least saying, "O people, where have you placed your minds?" So when he said it is an influential method of da'wah, he did not actually intend that this method is influential in all Muslim countries, but what he intended was that this influence, this method is influential in Algeria, and it was a response to a right that was usurped from them. This is what happened. And we are not now researching whether they erred or did not err, whether they entered the elections or did not enter, but what happened is that their right was usurped, so how should the response be? Go and pay respects to Ibn Jaid or al-Ghazali or Bakr, what is his name? This is Boudiaf, it should not be like this. Therefore, truly, it was an influential method, and the Algerian government really feared the Front, this is the matter they are saying.

The questioner : I mean, the fatwa would be in Algeria, and what they did not do in Algeria now, by their action of going out in demonstrations, if this image were repeated in another country, even to Algeria, is it permissible because it had an effect?
Shuqara: Brother Khalid, I am sorry, I did not say it was permissible, but I said one thing. I said this was a reaction. They are saying, "My brother, our right was usurped."

The questioner : You mentioned that he does not approve of the action. He said, "They realized they erred." He approves of the action and considers it a method of da'wah.

The Shaykh : Where is his text? In the approval?

The questioner : When he mentioned them proudly and boastfully, O our Shaykh. He mentioned the action boastfully and proudly.

The Shaykh : Boastfully? Now, there is no power or strength except in Allah. Be patient. If I were enthusiastic with this enthusiasm, I would be excused because I am Shuqara. Let us see where this speech is?
The tape: ... that Ibn Taymiyyah, yes, a group, a group used to raid and deny what was in it, there was nothing wrong with it. But is this gathering on falsehood? Does the Shaykh al-Islam have an organized party such that its membership is everyone who supports and raises and chants and shouts in the street, saying "Long live Ibn Taymiyyah"? ... Everyone who knows the truth and knows the religion and knows the Sunnah is with us. I mean, even if I tell you now, the Islamic world in its current situation now realizes this truth. I mean, Algeria, of course, follow the news. I mean, the revolution and the government with the army and the police and everything, they put them in the street. They put out a quarter of a million, as it is said. When the preachers and shaykhs said, "Go out in a march," they put out 3 million. These are not a party in the sense that we fear here. It is a secret organizational network. No, people said, "We will go out. Do you want the rule of Allah? Go out, or whoever bought... they are applying socialism on you. They went out and said, 'We want the rule of Allah.' The women, about 700 thousand, went out saying, 'Rule us with the Qur'an. We want the hijab. Abolish free mixing. Abolish sports in girls' schools. Abolish this and that.' And you saw that, perhaps in the news, and you read, a nation goes out in this form. This is a method of da'wah and influence. And yes, these people do not go out except behind them are scholars, behind them are followers, behind them are not like a group.

The Shaykh : No, no, may Allah guide you. We are not believers in boasting. We will believe in contradiction.

The questioner : Yes, I say contradiction.

The Shaykh : My brother, if we have proven the boasting, leave it for me. If it is contradiction.

The questioner : He takes pride in the going out of these people.

The Shaykh : He does not take pride. He talks about the reality. May Allah guide you. He does not take pride. He talks about the reality. The reality that indicates that these are a Muslim group and they do not want this disbeliever's rule. All that is the case is this. As for whether he supports this or does not support it, that is another matter.

The questioner : He supported it with his statement. With his tongue, he supported it.

The Shaykh : My brother, where is the statement you are asking about?

The questioner : He said, "O Shaykh, yes, this is a method of influence and da'wah." He approved of this method and considered it.

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you. Slow down. We repeated it to their ears two or three times. Where is this text in your mind? Now we are telling you here, you go back and say that he is boasting, and we have people who understand as you understand. I am the first of them. I do not understand as you understand that there is boasting here, but rather an explanation of the reality, all of which indicates that these are a Muslim group and they do not want this disbeliever's rule. As for the speaker saying that this is a means, he sees it as a means that achieves the desired goal for the Salafi group, or at least, it is said that he does not address this aspect at all. Rather, he is talking about the reality. This is my opinion. What is your opinion, O your excellence? What is your opinion? Take the opinion of the group. What is your opinion? No, no, listen, give me your opinion. Is there boasting here?

The questioner : Yes, there is boasting.

The Shaykh : Where is it?

The questioner : That he made it a method of da'wah, taking pride in it.

The Shaykh : Where is his statement that this is a means?

The questioner : Boasting or taking pride, these are synonyms.

The Shaykh : He added to his neighbor and companion, making it a method. We are now boasting, bragging. Two synonymous words. Where did he make it a method? Where did you get that he made it a method?

The questioner : From his tongue, from the same recording.

The Shaykh : By Allah, I am an honest and sincere advisor to you. It is forbidden for you to attribute to this person a meaning that is firmly established in your minds, and this does not come from the man's speech at all.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
Shuqara: I say, our Shaykh, today the brother Abu Jabir mentioned one of our brothers the da'is and mentioned a response to a statement he made, containing some sarcasm regarding a certain matter. May Allah reward the brother Abu Jabir with good; he stood up to defend the man who was mocked. The truth is, his position was good. You mentioned that we referred to a statement the man made, saying, "This is a heavy and bad statement. If we consider it bad, then it is bad. It is a word that should not be said by a da'i." So he said, "He said this a long time ago. He said this word years ago, ten or twenty years ago." We said, "Well, does the ruling change if he said it twenty or a hundred years ago, and then it was said in this time, or was not said? Does its ruling change if it were said?"

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : The ruling does not change; it is fixed. In fact, you stood up, and his words do not admit of figurative interpretation at all. It is explicit speech. In the market, the least we can say is that it is bad speech and should not come from a da'i, unless this da'i is insane.

The questioner : I agree with you that this speech should not be said.
Shuqara: No, no, excuse me, please allow me to say that you did not agree with this easily, but rather you said, "Perhaps this was in the sense that he did not mean it," meaning you made an excuse for it. I understood the speech, and therefore you excused your speech or your agreement with something that should not be used as an excuse, because this excuse is unacceptable at all. And I told you, especially since it was from a da'i. So what I am saying is, if that man's speech is as you say—and I am not saying this in boasting or bragging, but rather in frankness—that what that man said is what he said, and that he did not intend anything but preservation or for such-and-such, as was said. This is not found in the speech of this brother, not from near or far. On the contrary, I turn the issue back on you and on the brother Khalid, and I say that the speech of Safar, in fact, if you follow it from beginning to end, you will not find that his speech is correct. It is permissible that there is no linguistic coherence, no coherence of paragraphs, meaning that they are consistent with one another. There are gaps in the speech. I support you in this speech. But for there to be a meaning attributed to a sentence or a paragraph that is different from the meaning attributed to the paragraph before it or after it, I do not see this as being in the spirit of fairness to this man.