q2.4 It is a necessary condition that the person condemning something wrong be able to do so. Someone who is unable is not obliged to condemn it except in his heart. The obligation is not only lifted when physically unable, but also when one fears that problems (def: q2.7) will result for one, which also comes under the heading of inability. The obligation to censure the wrong is likewise lifted when one knows that the reproach will be ineffective. Four situations may be distinguished with respect to this.
When one knows (def: q2.6) the wrong will be eliminated by speaking or acting without this entailing problems for oneself, one is obliged to censure it.
When one knows that speaking will be ineffective and one will be beaten if one does, one is not obliged to.
When one knows that one’s censure will be ineffective but it does not entail problems for one, it is not obligatory, because of its ineffectiveness, though one is still recommended to censure the act is order to manifest the standards of Islam and remind people of their religion.
(A: Hadiths that seem to show the nonobligatoriness of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong are understood by Islamic scholars as referring to specific situations in which censure is ineffectual, and are not global statements about this obligation’s inapplicability to a certain era of history, such as our own or some future time. Commanding the right and forbidding the wrong will be obligatory until the Day of Judgement.)
And when one knows that it will cause problems for one but the wrong will be eliminated by censuring it, such as with breaking a lute or dumping out wine when one knows one will be beaten for it, then one is not obliged but rather recommended to, as is evident from the hadith,
“The best jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler”
There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battlelines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed. But if one knows it will not hurt them at all, such as if a blind man were to hurl himself against them, then it is unlawful. Likewise, if someone who is alone sees a corrupt person with a bottle of wine beside him and a sword in his hand, and he knows that the person will chop his neck if he censures him for drinking, it is not permissible for him to do so, as it would not entail any religious advantage worth giving one’s life for. Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.
q2.5 If one wants to censure something but knows it will result in one’s companions also being beaten with one, it is not permissible for one to do so, because one is incapable of rq3.0 WHAT MAY BE CENSURED
q3.1 The second integral of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong is that the thing censured is something blameworthy that exists at present and is apparent.
Blameworthy means that its occurrence is prohibited by Sacred Law, this being of wider scope than mere disobedience, for someone who sees a child or insane person drinking wine (A: which is not a sin in relation to them) is obliged to pour it out and forbid them.
That exists at present excludes someone who has drunk wine and is now finished, and so forth. It also excludes something which will take place later, as when there is evidence that a person intends to go drinking that night. There is no censure in such cases other than to appeal to the person’s conscience.
Apparent excludes someone who conceals his disobedience at home and locks his door. It is not permissible to spy on him. An exception is if something is manifest to another outside the house, such as the sound of pipes and lutes. Someone who hears them may enter and break the instruments. If one smells the odor of wine outside the house, the sounder opinion is that it is permissible to enter and condemn it.
ONE MAY NOT CONDEMN ANOTHER FOR QUESTIONS INVOLVING DIFFERENCES AMONG SCHOOLS OF JURISPRUDENCE
q3.2 It is a necessary condition that the thing censured be something whose blameworthiness is not merely established by ijtihad (n: the independent legal reasoning of a particular Imam). Any question in which there is ijtihad may not be a cause for censure. A Hanafi, for example, may not condemn a Shafi’i for eating something slaughtered without the Basmala (dis: j17.5(4)), nor a Shafi’i condemn a Hanafi for drinking some nonintoxicating raisin drunk (N: nor a Muslim condemn a non-Muslim for drinking wine (dis: o11.5(1))). (A: But if two individuals follow the same school of Sacred Law and one commits an act that is unlawful or offensive in that school or in each of the two’s respective schools, it is obligatory for the other person to condemn the act even when it involves the ijtihad of their Imam. And the Shafi’i must condemn the Hanafi for eating something slaughtered without the Basmala, as the Hanafi is doing something he believes to be wrong.)
q4.0 THE PERSON DOING THE WRONG
q4.1 The third integral of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong is the person being reprimanded. It is sufficient that he be a person, and is not necessary that he be legally responsible, as we have previously mentioned (q3.1) in respect to censuring a child or insane person.
q5.0 THE ACT OF CENSURING
q5.1 The fourth integral is the censure itself, which has various degrees of severity and has rules.
KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONG ACT
q5.2 The first degree consists of knowing the wrong act. One should not eavesdrop at another’s house in order to hear the sounds of musical instruments, or try to catch the scent of wine, or feel for an object concealed beneath someone’s shirt to see if it is a flute, or ask a person’s neighbors to see what he is doing. But if two upright witnesses (def: o24.4) come and inform one that someone is drinking, one may enter his house and take him to task.
EXPLAINING THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG
q5.3 The second degree consists of explaining that an act is wrong, since an ignorant person will often do something he does not know is blameworthy, but will stop when he finds out. So one must explain it politely, saying, for example: “People are not born scholars; we were unfamiliar with many things in Sacred Law until scholars mentioned them to us. Perhaps there are not many in your hometown,” and thus lead up to it diplomatically so the person understands without being offended. To avoid the evil of remaining silent when there is something wrong, only to commit the evil of offending a Muslim when able not to, it like washing away blood with urine.emoving one blameworthy thing without its leading to another.
(N: It is not lawful to censure anything reprehensible when doing so will lead to a thing or state that is more reprehensible.)
q2.6 Know only means what one believes will probably result. Someone who thinks that it will create problems for him is not obligated to censure, though someone who does not believe that problems will result is obliged to.
Cowardice does not enter into consideration here, not foolhardy courage, but rather the normal temperament of someone with a sound disposition.
q2.7 Problems means being beaten, killed, robbed, or acquiring a bad name in town. As for being reviled and disparaged, it is not an excuse to remain silent, for someone who commands what is right generally meets with it.