The Ruling on Pointing Out Error and How to Do It
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Your Eminence! We need a criterion for determining backbiting! If a scholar errs on an issue, no matter who this scholar is—with my respect and appreciation and all that befits his status—such as saying that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is not rising above His Throne, is pointing out that this issue is an error, warning against it, and clarifying the religious matters in which he erred considered backbiting, even though I am not at his level of knowledge? Or is it not permissible for me to point it out because I am not at his level of knowledge? Or is backbiting only disparaging a person with bad intentions? What is the criterion in this matter?
Look, may Allah bless you! Pointing out error is obligatory;But if you say: Whoever says: "Allah rose above the Throne" meaning: He took control of it, his statement is wrong, and his statement is denounced, and false implications follow from it, and you have brought what you have of evidence, and you have not named anyone.
Then generalization is better than specification for two reasons: The first reason: That the one who thinks should not think that you are biased against this person, especially if this person is prominent among people and respected, and has many good deeds.
The second factor: That this ruling applies to him and to others who shared in this religious innovation.
And for this reason, look at what the believer from the family of Pharaoh said! [Ghafir: 28] And he did not say: "Will you kill Musa?" Why?Because if he had specified him, it would be said: There was a personal connection between him and Musa, and he wanted to defend him,So he said: [Ghafir: 28] as if he were an unknown man, one he does not know, [Ghafir: 28] .
As Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) did with Quraysh in their treatment of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he said: [Will you kill a man because he says: My Lord is Allah?!] .
So generalization is better than specification from these two aspects.
As for remaining silent about error, that is an error, especially if the error comes from a prominent person whose words are taken and who is followed as an example; but before I point out his error, I contact him, discuss it with him, and bring my level to his level, as long as the intention is to reach the truth. If the truth becomes clear to him and he returns to it, that is what is required. If it does not become clear, and I see that he has contradicted a matter in which independent legal reasoning is not permissible, then in this situation, it is obligatory for me to clarify the truth.
Look, may Allah bless you! Pointing out error is obligatory;But if you say: Whoever says: "Allah rose above the Throne" meaning: He took control of it, his statement is wrong, and his statement is denounced, and false implications follow from it, and you have brought what you have of evidence, and you have not named anyone.
Then generalization is better than specification for two reasons: The first reason: That the one who thinks should not think that you are biased against this person, especially if this person is prominent among people and respected, and has many good deeds.
The second factor: That this ruling applies to him and to others who shared in this religious innovation.
And for this reason, look at what the believer from the family of Pharaoh said!
And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, "Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'
وَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مُؤْمِنٌ مِنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَكْتُمُ إِيمَانَهُ أَتَقْتُلُونَ رَجُلاً أَنْ يَقُولَ رَبِّيَ اللَّهُWill you kill a man
أَتَقْتُلُونَ رَجُلاًbecause he says, 'My Lord is Allah'
أَنْ يَقُولَ رَبِّيَ اللَّهُAs Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) did with Quraysh in their treatment of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he said: [Will you kill a man because he says: My Lord is Allah?!] .
So generalization is better than specification from these two aspects.
As for remaining silent about error, that is an error, especially if the error comes from a prominent person whose words are taken and who is followed as an example; but before I point out his error, I contact him, discuss it with him, and bring my level to his level, as long as the intention is to reach the truth. If the truth becomes clear to him and he returns to it, that is what is required. If it does not become clear, and I see that he has contradicted a matter in which independent legal reasoning is not permissible, then in this situation, it is obligatory for me to clarify the truth.