The Right Way of Combating Wrong According to the Shariah

‘Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong’ (amr bi’l ma‘aruf wa nahi an al-munkar) is a crucial Islamic duty binding on all Muslims. Indeed, it is the basis of the distinction that God has bestowed on his true followers as the ‘best ummah’.

Thus, the Quran says:


‘You are the best of peoples evolved for mankind, enjoining what is good and forbidding what is wrong […]’ (3: 110).


Elsewhere, the Quran describes the attributes of the true believers thus:


‘The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil’ (9: 71).


It is but natural, therefore, that, in accordance with this divine injunction, Islamic groups, organizations and movements regard as one of their principal tasks the reform of individuals and society by forbidding what is wrong or evil (munkar).

This is known as tagheer-e munkar in the terminology used by the fuqaha.


This indispensable task of reform by combating munkar has, however, to follow certain rules and principles. If these are not carefully observed, such efforts can, despite the best intentions of those who engage in them, can lead to immense conflict, strife, chaos, and even bloodshed. This is no mere conjecture. The efforts of certain radical movements in various parts of the Muslim world to combat munkar through unwarranted violence and repression have, as is common knowledge, proven entirely counter-productive. These efforts have not made their societies any more good or moral. On the contrary, instead of guiding people on the path of goodness, such a radical approach has led to massive destruction and bloodshed. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this wrong approach to the task of tagheer-e munkar has led, in many cases, to considerable resentment even against Islam, among not just non-Muslims but also several Muslims as well. This has further contributed to strengthening the widespread, though unwarranted, image of Islam as a brutal, intolerant, harsh and repressive religion.


According to a hadith report contained in the Musnad Ahmad and narrated by Adi Ibn Umariah, the Prophet is said to have declared, ‘God does not punish people in general for the [wrong] actions of specific individuals, but if the former see munkar amidst themselves and, despite being capable of stopping them, do not stop them, God subjects to punishment both [those who engage in munkar and those who, witnessing this, remain silent on this] […].’


In other words, Islam does not allow for its followers to remain mute witnesses to munkar, even if this is committed by an individual and does not affect other members of society. This latter is the approach that characterises contemporary Western individualistic philosophies, and has played such havoc in the present-day West, leading to widespread moral crisis.


Islam instructs its followers to seek to reform themselves as well as others, and to seek to combat munkar in themselves, in others and in the wider society as such. Thus, the noted companion of the Prophet Abu Said Khudri reports, in a hadith contained in the Sahih Muslim, that the Prophet said, ‘He among you who sees any munkar should seek to stop it with his hand. If he is not capable of that, he should [seek to stop it] with his tongue. And if he is incapable of even that, he should seek to remove it with his heart. And this is the lowest stage of faith.’


By removing munkar by one’s hand is meant to physically put an end to them. By removing munkar by one’s tongue is to seek to bring about reform through speech. And by opposing munkar by one’s heart is meant to be personally convinced, deep down in one’s own self, that a certain action or behaviour or thought is wrong.


In this above-mentioned hadith report, seeking to combat munkar by one’s hand is considered to be the highest form of faith. Yet, this should not be regarded in a literal sense in all cases. It cannot be said to be a general license for resorting to force or violence to curb munkar, as some radical self-styled Islamists imagine. Rather, the task of tagheer-e munkar is controlled by a number of principles, conditions and rules. After all, tagheer-e munkar is a very sensitive and extremely difficult task. To seek to prevent others from munkar is much more difficult than to exhort people to do good (ma‘aruf). Often, seeking to forcibly stop people from munkar—which is the approach taken by some extremist groups—can lead to an even more delicate, indeed much worse, situation. This is why the ulema have discussed this crucial issue of tagheer-e munkar in great detail, elaborating intricate rules laying down its scope and limits.


Another major subject of considerable debate among the ulema in this regard is the precise class of people among Muslims who are addressed by the above-mentioned hadith with regard to the duty of seeking to combat munkar through ‘the hand’ or, in other words, through physical force. They have also discussed at great length what forms of munkar can, or should, be combated through ‘the tongue’ and ‘the heart’.


In this regard, the noted Spanish Maliki jurist Imam Qurtubi writes in his Al-Jamia’ li Ahkam ul-Quran:


‘According to the ulema, the commandment to enjoin the good [or to combat evil] is the responsibility of the ruler (hakim); to do so by the tongue is the responsibility of the ulema; and to do so by the heart is the responsibility of the ordinary people.’


On the other hand, many ulema are of the view that while using force for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is the duty of the ruler, the duty of doing so by the tongue is to be shared by both the ulema and ordinary Muslims. This view seems closer to the intention of the above-quoted hadith, for when it says ‘He among you’, it indicates that it is addressed to Muslims in general. At the same time, it appears that those who are capable of using force to enjoin good and combat evil do not enjoy a general permission to do so. Qualifying this right, the noted classical jurists Imam Juwaini and Imam Ghazali argue that ordinary Muslims who do have the capacity to do so can act accordingly only if they do not use violence for this purpose and if their actions do not result in bloodshed and strife (fitna).


Certain crucial question need to be asked in this regard. What are the limits set by the shariah on ordinary Muslims or rulers with regard to combating munkar? When can or should they do so? When are they not permitted to do so? What are the attributes or characteristics of the various forms of munkar that the above-mentioned hadith refers to?


The Conditions for Combatting munkar


The first and most basic condition for combatting munkar is, as is indicated in the above-mentioned hadith report, that the person must have the capacity to do so. If he lacks the physical capacity to combat munkar through his ‘hand’, this duty is not binding on him. Instead, he can seek to combat the same munkar by his ‘tongue’ or his ‘heart’, if he can do so. This is because if he seeks to engage in physically stopping munkar while not possessing the necessary capacity for the purpose, it is doubtful if he can be successful. In fact, his action might have an entirely contradictory effect and prove to be wholly counter-productive.


The second condition for someone to seek to physically or forcibly combat munkar is that the munkar in question be unanimously considered to be something forbidden (haram) in the shariah. In fact, this is the actual meaning of the word munkar, for, as the ulema put it, munkar is something that the shariah recognizes as repulsive, declares as forbidden, and enjoins people to avoid. The shariah considers as munkar something which, if committed, earns God’s anger. However, if the evil is not wholly haram according to the shariah, but, rather, falls in the category of makruh or what is reprehensible or disliked but yet not clearly forbidden, then it is not included in the category of munkar. That is why to abandon actions that are recommended or praiseworthy but not compulsory cannot be considered munkar because the shariah does not regard these actions as compulsory and binding on Muslims. Besides these, all matters that are subject to the ijtihad of the ulema and on which there are differences of opinion among the ulema cannot be considered to be in the category of munkar. In this regard, the noted second generation scholar of Hadith Sufian Sauri remarks,


‘If you see a person committing an act on which there is dispute [among the ulema as to its status ] then you should not seek to stop him.’ Likewise, in his al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair, Imam Suyuti writes, ‘Rebutting munkar will not apply to matters on which there is a dispute [as regards their status, among the ulema]. [Rather,] it will apply to matters on which there is unanimity [among the ulema, as to their status].’


The third condition for combating munkar by one’s hand is that the munkar in question be open and evident (zahir), not hidden. There is a consensus among the ulema that if a certain munkar is not visible to the eye, to seek to forcibly end it in the course of disclosing it is not permitted in the shariah, for engaging in unnecessary curiosity about other’s affairs in clearly forbidden in the Quran, which says :


‘O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much [as possible]: for suspicion in some cases is a sin: and spy not on each other, nor speak ill of each other behind their backs.’ (49: 12).


This point is also clear from the above-mentioned hadith, which begins the words ‘He among you who sees any munkar’.


This indicates that the munkar in question must be clearly visible. As a matter of principle, there exists unanimity on the issue that shariah rulings apply to external actions or behaviour, while matters that are not visible are for God to judge. In this regard, Imam Ghazali refers in his Ihya ul-Ulum ud-Din to a case involving Umar, the second Sunni Caliph. Once, as was his habit, Umar went around the town to inspect what was happening, and climbed a wall belonging to a man. Thereupon, he saw the man engaging in a bad deed, and scolded him. The man responded by saying, ‘O Commander of the Faithful! I have committed just one sin, while you have committed three.’ Umar asked the man to explain what he meant. The latter answered, ‘God has forbidden unwarranted curiosity about others, but you engaged in this. God has commanded that we must enter [people’s homes] through their doors, but you came in from the rear. Likewise, God has commanded that we must greet people with “peace” when we enter [their] homes, but you did not wish me in this way.’ Having listened to him, Umar forgave the man after the man repented of his evil deed and expressed remorse.


The fourth, and most crucial, condition for seeking to physically combat munkar is that in doing there is no fear of this leading to an even greater munkar.


Stages in Combatting munkar


Combatting munkar is not simply a question of passing and imposing certain laws and forcing people to abide by them on pain of severe punishment, as some of our ulema and Islamists fondly imagine. Rather, it is a long process, which can go through different stages. There are also different forms and levels that it can take. In his well-known book Amr bi‘l Ma‘aruf wa Nahi an al-Munkar, Allama Ibn Taiymiha explains these forms in considerable detail. His noted disciple Allama Ibn Qayyim elaborates on them as follows:


‘There are four levels of combating munkar. Firstly, when the munkar is uprooted completely and good is established [in its place]. Secondly, when the munkar diminishes although it is not fully extirpated. Thirdly, when the munkar is uprooted but its place is taken by a similar munkar. Fourthly, when the munkar is uprooted but it is replaced by an even bigger munkar.


Then, he adds:
‘The first two levels are permissible. As for the third level or form, it is subject to ijtihad [either to be left alone or else to be combated], while the fourth is forbidden (haram).’


Ibn Qayyim clarifies his argument with the help of an example. Suppose, he says, a person spends his time in wasteful and frivolous activities. If it is known beforehand that by asking him to stop this he will indeed do so, he should be asked to stop, provided, of course, this does not lead him to take engage in an even bigger munkar. If it is known that by giving up a particular munkar he will engage in an even bigger munkar, he should not be prevented from the former, and should, instead, be left to himself. In this regard, Ibn Qayyim approvingly cites the case of his teacher Ibn Taiymiyah, who, he says, once passed by a group of Tartars who were drinking alcohol. Because he did not attempt to stop them from doing so, he was rebuked by some people. Defending himself, Ibn Taimiyah answered, ‘Leave them to their state, so that their attention is diverted from killing and looting the wealth of the people.’
*

From this discussion it clearly emerges that while combating munkar—be it at the level of the individual or of society—is a duty binding on all Muslims, it is a task that is to be carefully regulated and conducted according to certain principles, which the ulema have elaborated upon. If these are not observed, even the most well-intentioned efforts to combat munkar can prove entirely counter-productive, leading to widespread chaos and bloodshed, thereby tarnishing the fair name of Islam. The terrifying consequences of the efforts of some ‘Islamic’ movements, both in the past and in the present, to combat munkar through unwarranted violence, oppression and harshness are a chilling reminder in this regard.