Do we rebuke a person who forbids evil without knowing the rules governing it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Do we rebuke a person who does not forbid evil or call to ...?
The Shaykh : I mean that there are two obligations upon the true scholar:
The first obligation is conveying the message, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2669Sahih (Darussalam).
The other obligation is wisdom in conveying the message.
Therefore, neglecting one obligation does not justify neglecting the other. Neglecting the obligation to call with wisdom does not remove from the caller the obligation to call to the truth. And so we said earlier in answering your previous question: We do not forbid the caller from calling to the truth if he does not improve his method of calling. The method of calling is a right, but this right does not remove from him another right. Especially when callers are few. And by callers, I mean those who clarify things for people and make them understand what Allah has forbidden and what He has permitted. I do not mean those who call Muslims in a general way, calling Muslims to Islam. But what is this Islam in its creed? What is this Islam in its jurisprudence? In its worship? These matters are left to people, each according to what he has understood, or according to what he found his fathers and grandfathers upon.
On this occasion: I recall a party that explicitly states that they do not adopt a view in creed; that is, they do not call people to a specific creed; not the Salafi creed, nor the Ash'ari, nor the Maturidi, nor the Mu'tazilah, nor anything else; they leave people free like this. But they oblige those who belong to that party to adopt the party's view that it is the right of a woman to vote and to be elected. And if he does not adopt this view, he becomes an outcast from the party.
The Shaykh : I mean that there are two obligations upon the true scholar:
The first obligation is conveying the message, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Convey from me, even if it be an Ayah
بلِّغوا عنِّي ولو آيةThe other obligation is wisdom in conveying the message.
Therefore, neglecting one obligation does not justify neglecting the other. Neglecting the obligation to call with wisdom does not remove from the caller the obligation to call to the truth. And so we said earlier in answering your previous question: We do not forbid the caller from calling to the truth if he does not improve his method of calling. The method of calling is a right, but this right does not remove from him another right. Especially when callers are few. And by callers, I mean those who clarify things for people and make them understand what Allah has forbidden and what He has permitted. I do not mean those who call Muslims in a general way, calling Muslims to Islam. But what is this Islam in its creed? What is this Islam in its jurisprudence? In its worship? These matters are left to people, each according to what he has understood, or according to what he found his fathers and grandfathers upon.
On this occasion: I recall a party that explicitly states that they do not adopt a view in creed; that is, they do not call people to a specific creed; not the Salafi creed, nor the Ash'ari, nor the Maturidi, nor the Mu'tazilah, nor anything else; they leave people free like this. But they oblige those who belong to that party to adopt the party's view that it is the right of a woman to vote and to be elected. And if he does not adopt this view, he becomes an outcast from the party.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.