Is it a condition for the one who enjoins good that he not enjoin it unless he practices it, and that he not forbid evil unless he abandons it?

The questioner : O Shaykh, in a verse that says ... Is the intended meaning of the verse that - O Shaykh - it is not obligatory to call to something one does not practice ... ?

The Shaykh : No, that is an error. Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said, as Imam al-Qurtubi mentioned in his tafsir, *Al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Quran*: "Satan would like to hear from one of you a word like this: 'Who among us is perfect such that he does not enjoin good except what he does?'" In other words, I think Malik's word is clear, but to explain it: the Muslim has two obligations: an intellectual obligation and a practical obligation. The intellectual obligation is to learn and to teach, to clarify things for the people and not to conceal knowledge from them. The second obligation is to act upon his knowledge. It is known to everyone, of course, like the verse: and so on; it is known that the scholar who does not act upon his knowledge is censured, and there are many hadiths about this. But these hadiths and these verses are an exhortation for the scholar regarding the issue to act upon it, and the intention is not to prevent him from conveying knowledge to the people. Because if we imagine three people, all of them from the people of knowledge: a scholar who acts upon his knowledge and calls people to his knowledge, a scholar who does not act upon his knowledge but calls people to his knowledge, and a scholar who neither acts nor calls; is this better than the middle one? Without doubt, the middle one is better, but better than the middle one is the first one who enjoins and conveys. If the matter turns between abandoning action and abandoning knowledge and its explanation; no, one sin is lighter and less evil than combining the two sins.
Have I clarified the answer for you?

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And beware of that.