Section Six
Enjoining what is Right
and
Forbidding what is Wrong (evil)
Al-Amr bil-Ma’rūf wal-Nahi ‘Anil-Monkar
Ma’rūf (right) is every deed which the Shari’ah made obligatory or recommended, so if the command is one of obligation, enjoining others to do it becomes obligatory (wājib), and if the command is one of recommendation, enjoining others to do it becomes recommended (mostahabb). Monkar (wrong, evil) is every deed which the Shari’ah did not accept, so it made it forbidden, or encouraged abstention from doing it, so if the deed is forbidden, forbidding it becomes obligatory and if it is recommended to abstain from it, forbidding it becomes recommended. But it must be noted that the recommendation of enjoining recommended deeds (mostahabb) and forbidding the deeds that are recommended to abstain from (makrūh) is conditional by this being safe from harm or humiliation, otherwise the enjoining or forbidding become forbidden.
Enjoining obligatory deeds and forbidding forbidden deeds are a kifā’i obligations that the person is relieved of when others attend to them. However, the act of enjoining or forbidding is not cancelled by carrying them out; rather the obligation stays as long as committing the forbidden deed or abandoning the obligatory deed continues.
(A) Requirements enabling enjoining and forbidding
732. In addition to the general requirements/conditions of reaching the Islamic legal age and sanity, the following are also conditional to enable enjoining (what is right) and forbidding (what is wrong, evil):
First: Knowledge of right (ma’rūf) and wrong (monkar); therefore one must learn the rulings regarding areas to which a person may be subject to in his conduct and relations, so that he can carry out the duty of enjoining and forbidding.
Second: The enjoiner and forbidder must be safe from harm to himself and his honour; this condition includes also no harm to other Muslims or their possession or honour.
It is also conditional that the act of enjoining or forbidding does not require getting into intense difficulty that the person cannot withstand, such that if this leads to him not being able to stay in his house, or to leaving a profitable job for a very demanding job. This also applies to enjoining and forbidding that leads to getting others into intense difficulty.
It is sufficient for the obligation to be cancelled if there is the possibility of harm, even if it is commonly regarded as only probable. As far as intense difficulty is concerned, this is not sufficient reason, but it has to be ascertained since it is a realistic matter.
That said, in some cases it may become obligatory to withstand harm, such as in big confrontation to fight injustice and establish justice. But since this is difficult for the person to tell, he must consult the Islamic authority (al-hakim ash-Shar’i) to study it and see the degree of harm that must be accepted.
(B) Who is to enjoin and forbid
733. Certain things must be present in the person who is abstaining from the ma’rūf or doing the monkar so that he may be enjoined or forbidden:
First: His knowledge that what he is neglecting is ma’rūf, or what he does is monkar, so if he is ignorant about the rulings on the matter, the obligation of enjoining or forbidding will no longer exist, unless if what he is about to do is something important which Allah the Most High does not accept absolutely, such as the murder of a sacred soul, grand corruption etc.
Second: He must not be excused of doing the monkar or neglecting the ma’rūf, as in compelling cases, or according to ijtihād and taqlid, but if this concerns an important matter as above, forbidding them becomes obligatory if possible, even if the person is excused and not to be blamed for them.
Third: The enjoining or forbidding should be regarded as a reasonable endeavour, even if the person is not actually doing the deed or insisting on continuing doing it, for it is sufficient that his intent is to abstain/neglect a ma’rūf or commit a monkar or for knowledge of his intent to continue.
Fourth: It is probable that the enjoining or forbidding will have effect; what is meant here is not the immediate effect, but applies to any situation other than being completely convinced that the person does not care about the enjoining or forbidding and will not be affected by them; so if the person is convinced that that sinner would not be affected, in this case trying to stop him will not be obligatory.
734. In any situation where we said that the obligation of enjoining or forbidding is cancelled, it is allowed for the person to (nonetheless) go ahead with them, enjoining and forbidding as a matter of reminding the sinner about Allah the Most High, unless this leads to humiliation and belittlement in which case this becomes forbidden.
735. One must continue enjoining and forbidding time and again as long as the sinner is still committing the deeds; it is sufficient for the obligation to stay if it is probable that he might stop, until one discovers otherwise.
(C) Levels of enjoining and forbidding
736. Enjoining others to do what is right and forbidding what is wrong can be carried out in three ways:
First: Through the heart, which is done through showing one's distaste and annoyance, such as by turning away from offenders and not speaking with them and the like.
Second: Through speech, which is using words in a suitable and effective manner; therefore, one must decide upon using gentleness, or harshness etc.
Third: Through the hand, which means hurting them by beating them in the manner that the hand is usually used for; here are some points:
a- Beating is not to be resorted to unless all other ways fail.
b- The furthest extent of beating must stay below fractures or wounds, but if stopping them can only be achieved through fractures and wounds, it becomes obligatory with the permission of the Islamic authority.
c- One must proceed in order of the levels of beating from the lightest to the harshest; therefore the case must be studied in all its aspects. However, studying some important levels of enjoining and forbidding may be so sensitive and important that it must be the responsibility of the state – if such exists – or the believers who have experience when such a state does not exist, so that carrying out the enjoining and forbidding does not harm Islam or the public order in a way that might lead to disturbance, chaos or other dangers.
737. It is not obligatory to proceed in order between using the heart and using speech, but the enjoiner and forbidder is to decide which one will be effective.
(D) Rulings of enjoining and forbidding
738. The obligation of enjoining others to do what is right and forbidding what is wrong/evil is not exclusive to people outside the family and relatives, but they include unmarriageable individuals, relatives, husband and wife and others; in fact this might be more appropriate, while noting that kinship and family relationships or marital links may need more precision and study of how to carry out the enjoining and forbidding, and may provide a person with additional leverage in the methods of enjoining and forbidding.
739. If, to make the enjoining and forbidding effective, more than one person is needed, whether within an organised framework such as societies, clubs or (political) parties, or without an organisation, it becomes obligatory on them if it is possible, and the obligation will not be regarded as satisfied without it.
740. It is not allowed for Muslims to put their children in non-Muslim schools if deviation is possible even if in the future; otherwise it is allowed, although it is better not to do so when Islamic schools are available.
And assuming there are no (Islamic) schools and it is feared that the children will fall into deviation, it becomes obligatory on Muslims, as a kifā’i duty (obligation under the conditions of sufficiency), to strive to found such schools in the number that meets the demand.
741. If stopping evil deed cannot be done but by committing a forbidden act, such as entering a place without permission, touching women or the like, it becomes allowed if the wrong to be forbidden is more important than the forbidden act needed. This includes if to stop the wrong seeking help from an unjust ruler is needed; this is allowed unless this leads to something worse (more evil) than the wrong one is seeking to stop.
Epilogue
Since committing monkar and ignoring ma’rūf have become a dominant phenomenon committed by states, organisations, societies and establishments, in addition to individuals, both ordinary and important, the strong and effective confrontation with this phenomenon requires a detailed study and comprehensive plan that takes into consideration social, political, economic and security matters. As for those in the religious propagation field, they must – according to their position and capabilities – strive with all their effort to preach, advise, teach and confront any form of corruption and misdeed with wisdom, depth, patience and comprehensiveness, and must strive, with the activists, to make the plan a reality in this or that position; this is because this is an era of emergency for which they should mobilise all their power in this great Message-bound duty.