The Criterion for Forbidding What Is Wrong in Matters of Independent Legal Reasoning
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Your Eminence! What is the criterion for forbidding evil and not forbidding it in matters of independent legal reasoning?
The Criterion: Scientific matters are subject to forbidding what is wrong because they are matters of the unseen, and it is not permissible for a person to go beyond the text in them. As for practical matters, if something contradicts an explicit text that does not admit of figurative interpretation, it is forbidden to be wrong. If it contradicts evidence that admits of figurative interpretation, it is not forbidden to be wrong. This is the criterion. For this reason, we forbid what is wrong regarding those who distort words from their places in the names and attributes of Allah or in the Hereafter, because these are purely scientific, narrative matters into which other things cannot be introduced.
As for matters of independent legal reasoning, one also looks at: If the text is clear, he is forbidden to be wrong. If it is not clear and admits of figurative interpretation, he is not forbidden to be wrong.An example of that is: Two men ate camel meat; one believes it invalidates the ablution, and the other believes it does not. This is a practical matter of independent legal reasoning, so neither forbids the other from being wrong. If the one who ate, believing it does not invalidate the ablution, stood up to pray and led the prayer, I consider this prayer invalid in my view, but it is not invalid in his view. For this reason, it is permissible for a man to be my imam; I pray behind him while I believe his prayer is invalid in my view, but it is valid in his view.
The Criterion: Scientific matters are subject to forbidding what is wrong because they are matters of the unseen, and it is not permissible for a person to go beyond the text in them. As for practical matters, if something contradicts an explicit text that does not admit of figurative interpretation, it is forbidden to be wrong. If it contradicts evidence that admits of figurative interpretation, it is not forbidden to be wrong. This is the criterion. For this reason, we forbid what is wrong regarding those who distort words from their places in the names and attributes of Allah or in the Hereafter, because these are purely scientific, narrative matters into which other things cannot be introduced.
As for matters of independent legal reasoning, one also looks at: If the text is clear, he is forbidden to be wrong. If it is not clear and admits of figurative interpretation, he is not forbidden to be wrong.An example of that is: Two men ate camel meat; one believes it invalidates the ablution, and the other believes it does not. This is a practical matter of independent legal reasoning, so neither forbids the other from being wrong. If the one who ate, believing it does not invalidate the ablution, stood up to pray and led the prayer, I consider this prayer invalid in my view, but it is not invalid in his view. For this reason, it is permissible for a man to be my imam; I pray behind him while I believe his prayer is invalid in my view, but it is valid in his view.