Again, his claim that "All that he can do is to repudiate ..." is a clear mistake. The correct stance is that the three stages of repudiation are permissible for authorized as well as nonauthorized persons. They only
differ in their capacity, for the one authorized by the government is more capable than others. Besides, repudiation by the heart is the least form of Faith for the one incapable of repudiation by either hand or tongue, be he an (authorized) official or a volunteer. This is in line with the noble Hadith and with the prerequisites of Shar`i rules.
In addition, his claim that "adoption of harshness and rigor could only be admissible and acceptable in a community or an Ummah where no government bodies undertake such a duty. Yet, if such bodies are available, then the individuals are not allowed to assume such a rule, since it is then already assumed by established government authorities", is unequivocally disputable too. Moreover, the approach adopted by the writer is not scientific and does not conform to Shar`i evidence because calling to Allah's Way and teaching people that which they know not of His Shari`ah should not be introduced in such a way. Rather, it should be introduced through exhortation and inducement, especially among nations and communities in need of it, for calling and inviting such people to what they are required to embrace of Allah's Law, including things assigned for rulers and scholars is limited to what lies within their scope. Thus, how can such a great thing be expressed in the words of the writer, namely, that it could be admissible and acceptable?