What is your opinion of one who leaves off forbidding a number of wrongs and violations, such as wearing chains and imitating the disbelievers and the like, on the pretext of not driving people away from Islam?

The questioner : What is your opinion of one who leaves off forbidding a number of wrongs and violations, such as wearing chains and imitating the disbelievers and the like, on the pretext of not driving people away from Islam, and even goes further than that by committing some of the prohibited things himself, such as shaking hands with women and the like, on the same pretext?

The Shaykh : This is, as they say, an excuse worse than the sin, and this is what we complain of from some groups who adopt the Zionist principle, which states: "The end justifies the means." It is not permissible for a Muslim to adopt such means. This is not permissible in any of the known schools of the Muslim scholars. Rather, it is permissible only according to the school of Abu Nuwas, who used to say: "I treat the disease with what was the cause of the disease." Indeed, those who make it easy to commit these prohibitions on the pretext of winning hearts and bringing the disbelievers or the open sinners to Islam are falling into the very thing they claim they want to take people out of. And in the course of that, they are severely, very severely, very severely heedless of such as His saying—Blessed and Exalted is He—: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was the highest example and method in calling to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). He did not adopt such means to bring the disbelievers closer to his religion. Rather, he was commanded with such as His saying—Exalted is He—: And the Lord of the worlds—Blessed and Exalted is He—did not command in the Noble Qur'an, nor did His Prophet (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him), to commit such prohibited means, as some callers to Allah claim, unfortunately, by committing the lesser of two harms. One commits the lesser of two harms only if he has no choice, meaning he is forced to fall into the lesser of two harms. For example, if he is exposed to death by hunger, not intending it, and there is a dead sheep before him and a live or dead pig before him, it is not permissible for him to eat from anything but the sheep, because its original state is lawful, unlike the pig, whose original state is forbidden to the greatest degree of prohibition while it is alive, so how much more so when it is dead? In this case, it is said that the lesser of two harms is taken. But to say that the lesser of two harms is to commit a prohibition in the name of calling those who have fallen into what is more severe than this prohibition to Islam, that is the school of Abu Nuwas: "I treat the disease with what was the cause of the disease." Yes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) might see a wrong and remain silent about it for a time. But for him to commit the wrong in the name of "the end justifies the means," it is, as I said earlier, a Jewish Zionist method. I disavow every Muslim from falling into such a thing.
Yes.