وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

Firstly, the chain of transmission (isnād) of the ḥadīth must be verified. The mere authentication of the ḥadīth by Shaikh al-Albānī (رحمه الله) does not necessarily mean the ḥadīth is definitively authentic, as the processes of authentication and weakening (التصحيح والتضعيف) are from the discretionary judgments (الأمور الاجتهادية), as is well known. Secondly, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the ḥadīth is authentic, our duty is to understand it in light of what the recognized scholars of knowledge (ahl al-ʿilm) upon the methodology of the Salaf have said regarding its meaning and application, not in light of the interpretation or explanation provided by a contemporary student of knowledge. As it is known that the speech of the Prophet (ﷺ) constitutes a binding proof (ḥujjah), we likewise affirm that the accepted understanding of his words is the understanding of the Salaf aṣ-Ṣāliḥ (the pious predecessors). It is their understanding that serves as the binding proof (ḥujjah), not the interpretations of those who came after them or anyone else adhering to a methodology other than what they were upon. Finally, it should also be clarified that bearing witness to the faults of rulers who have committed errors-assuming the authenticity of the ḥadīth-is not synonymous with publicly denouncing them from the pulpits (manābir), protesting against them, or creating public videos to attack and insult them. Such actions go beyond what the ḥadīth indicates. Whoever asserts that such actions fall within the scope of what the ḥadīth mentions, then it is upon them to provide evidence for their claim. As Allāh, says: {قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ} "Say, 'Bring your proof, if you are truthful.'” [2:111] And how will they be able to do so?! _ Abu Atiyyah 10/Rajab/1446 H.