The obligation regarding the wrongs that are committed
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Sitting in a place where there is wrong may be in its removal, or leaving the place may cause slight harm, such as the anger of those present who are relatives or family, and some—truthfully—He narrates a story by which he argues, saying: that he saw you once in the Najdi exhibition, you heard [the wrong] but neither stood up nor forbade it, is this correct?
First: Sitting with the people of wrong while a person is able to stand up makes him a partner with them in the sin;because of His saying, the Exalted: [al-Nisa: 140] meaning: if you sit with them, you are like them, and it is not permissible for anyone to sit with the people of wrong, except if there is harm in his leaving, whereas merely his family getting angry or something similar to that is not an excuse, so if his family, for example, turn on the television to something forbidden and he forbids them; but they do not stop, it is obligatory for him to stand up,When he says: if I stand up my father or mother or wife or something similar to that will be upset with me, then it is not permissible for him to remain, rather it is obligatory for him to stand up even if they get angry; because seeking the pleasure of people through the anger of Allah means prioritizing what people are pleased with over what Allah is pleased with—may Allah protect us from that.
As for what is attributed to me regarding sitting in the Najdi exhibition: First: this is true, I sat because I was addressing a person whom I believed addressing him had a great benefit greater than my standing up, whereas the Najdi exhibition is permitted by some scholars in occasions such as festivals and the like, and they use as evidence the action of the Habashah in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) where they were playing with their spears before the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he permitted Aisha to look at them, so he would hide her and she would look from over his shoulder (peace and blessings be upon him), thereby making light of this matter that it was done in an occasion that may be permissible for such play.
And secondly: that as I told you: I was addressing one whom I saw that addressing him had a great benefit that outweighs the harm of my presence for something in which there is disagreement regarding its permissibility, so this leads us to another issue,And it is a matter of disagreement: if a person is doing an act and you see that it is forbidden while he sees that it is permissible, is it permissible for you to remain with him because he did something forbidden in your view, or is it not permissible?Some people might say: It is permissible for you to remain with him; because this act is not forbidden in his view.
And people may say: It is not permissible; because this act is forbidden in your view.
So is the criterion the belief of the doer, or the belief of the one sitting?What appears to me: that the criterion is the belief of the doer, so if he sees that it is lawful and there is no clear text that invalidates his independent legal reasoning, then the criterion is in his act,And the evidence for this is: if you and a man ate camel meat, and you see that it breaks the ablution so you performed the ablution, and he sees that it does not break the ablution so he did not perform the ablution, and the time for prayer came and he stood up to pray in front of you or perhaps prayed as a follower with you, is this forbidden?Answer: No, even though prayer without ablution is among the greatest of major sins,Until some of the scholars said: the one who prays while in a state of ritual impurity has exited Islam.
And it is known that we do not sin if a person who ate camel meat with us and sees that it does not break the ablution while we see that it breaks it prays next to us, so we do not sin by his praying with us.
So if you see a person who has broken his purity by urination or defecation and he stands up to pray with you, is it permissible for you to approve of him? It is not permissible for you to approve of him, rather you must prevent him, so if he refuses to do anything but do it, then turn away from him.
So this issue; the issue of disagreement among scholars based on pure independent legal reasoning, in which there is no decisive evidence, if the one who sees that it is permissible does it, then it is permissible in his right, and I, if I did not do it, then nothing of his sin is upon me.
First: Sitting with the people of wrong while a person is able to stand up makes him a partner with them in the sin;because of His saying, the Exalted:
And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them
وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ إِنَّكُمْ إِذاً مِثْلُهُمْAs for what is attributed to me regarding sitting in the Najdi exhibition: First: this is true, I sat because I was addressing a person whom I believed addressing him had a great benefit greater than my standing up, whereas the Najdi exhibition is permitted by some scholars in occasions such as festivals and the like, and they use as evidence the action of the Habashah in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) where they were playing with their spears before the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he permitted Aisha to look at them, so he would hide her and she would look from over his shoulder (peace and blessings be upon him), thereby making light of this matter that it was done in an occasion that may be permissible for such play.
And secondly: that as I told you: I was addressing one whom I saw that addressing him had a great benefit that outweighs the harm of my presence for something in which there is disagreement regarding its permissibility, so this leads us to another issue,And it is a matter of disagreement: if a person is doing an act and you see that it is forbidden while he sees that it is permissible, is it permissible for you to remain with him because he did something forbidden in your view, or is it not permissible?Some people might say: It is permissible for you to remain with him; because this act is not forbidden in his view.
And people may say: It is not permissible; because this act is forbidden in your view.
So is the criterion the belief of the doer, or the belief of the one sitting?What appears to me: that the criterion is the belief of the doer, so if he sees that it is lawful and there is no clear text that invalidates his independent legal reasoning, then the criterion is in his act,And the evidence for this is: if you and a man ate camel meat, and you see that it breaks the ablution so you performed the ablution, and he sees that it does not break the ablution so he did not perform the ablution, and the time for prayer came and he stood up to pray in front of you or perhaps prayed as a follower with you, is this forbidden?Answer: No, even though prayer without ablution is among the greatest of major sins,Until some of the scholars said: the one who prays while in a state of ritual impurity has exited Islam.
And it is known that we do not sin if a person who ate camel meat with us and sees that it does not break the ablution while we see that it breaks it prays next to us, so we do not sin by his praying with us.
So if you see a person who has broken his purity by urination or defecation and he stands up to pray with you, is it permissible for you to approve of him? It is not permissible for you to approve of him, rather you must prevent him, so if he refuses to do anything but do it, then turn away from him.
So this issue; the issue of disagreement among scholars based on pure independent legal reasoning, in which there is no decisive evidence, if the one who sees that it is permissible does it, then it is permissible in his right, and I, if I did not do it, then nothing of his sin is upon me.