When is it obligatory to forbid evil with the tongue and the hand?

The questioner : Our brothers there say: We believe that we are in what is called the Meccan phase, in terms of patience and da'wah (calling to Islam), patience and da'wah. But he says: In Khan Younis, all the inhabitants are Muslims, and sometimes we are forced to remove evil with the hand. Is it permissible for us to remove an evil with the hand? I give an example: there was a cinema in Khan Younis for prostitution to spread corruption. Our brothers took control of it and bought it from its owner. The owner called the Israeli Jewish army to protect it, but they stood firm for about... there were about two thousand of them!

The Shaykh : How do you say "bought"?

The questioner : At first... they were forced to buy it. Initially, they wanted to close it, but they bought the cinema.

The Shaykh : Okay, they bought it?

The questioner : They bought it, yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, that's settled. So...

The questioner : The second stage. But I tell you, they did not do what they did in the first stage!

The Shaykh : But it is not clear!

The questioner : The first stage was that they closed it. They locked it, so its owner became angry and called the army. They stood firm in front of the cinema, meaning they did not yield. It had to be closed. Perhaps there were maneuvers between them and the army. In my understanding, the army returned. Then, in the second stage, the cinema owner realized that he could not deal with the matter, because these people are the majority of the area and they do not want this cinema!

Another questioner : Arab?

The questioner : No, Arab. Yes, from Khan Younis. So they bought it in installments, non-interest-bearing payments to its owner, until they bought it from him. Now they ask: Was this action, starting with the hand, in accordance with the Book and the Sunnah, or did they transgress? And so on for many matters. They say people used to come to the mosque from the area, who are Muslims, and insult us and curse us. If we remained silent, they would persist. But if we proved to them that we are strong in our religion, we take pride in our religion, and you want to fight, we will fight you, they would back down. So I do not know...?

The Shaykh : First, a word came out of you that I think was not intentional, meaning, or in other words, it was a slip of the tongue regarding them. I do not think they intend the meaning of that term. What stuck in my mind is that they consider themselves to be in the Meccan period. Did I say that?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, do they say this?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Or perhaps they say something to that effect.

The questioner : They say we are close to the Meccan period.

The Shaykh : The wording improved a bit!

The questioner : Perhaps... yes.

The Shaykh : Because we hear from some people that they actually consider themselves to be in the Meccan period due to some of the circumstances and pressures they live under. This contains clear misguidance, because for a Muslim to consider himself in the Meccan period means he is escaping from rulings whose obligation to perform or whose obligation to avoid is established by the scholars of Muslims. A Muslim would never say that. In my opinion, what leads them to such a word, let alone to believe its meaning, is their feeling that they cannot, by themselves, implement much or little, at least, of the Islamic rulings. What leads them to this is, in reality, their ignorance of Islam, their ignorance of Islam and the Islamic scientific principles by which a Muslim can respond to all the circumstances he lives in without claiming that he is living in the Meccan period or something like the Meccan period. After drawing attention to that word and clarifying the intended meaning, I return to answering the question: Are they allowed to change evil with their hands? The truth is that such a question has no justification—And upon you be peace, mercy of Allah, and blessings. Welcome—it has no basis, since every Muslim knows the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Therefore, changing evil with the hand is a matter explicitly stated in the texts, not an ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of some scholars. Therefore, the question "Is it permissible to change evil with the hand?" in this general form is not acceptable. But often the question is general, and the detail is in the heartThe questioner : The one who summarized the question without clarifying it, it seems our brothers there are asking: Is it permissible for people like us, who live in the known conditions we have, to change evil by hand? The answer is whether by hand or by tongue, because both changing evil by hand and changing evil by tongue are related to the society in which a person lives, unlike changing evil by heart, which none knows except Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), and no harm whatsoever follows from changing evil by heart. Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made the last rank of denunciation to be denunciation by heart. And if this denunciation by heart does not occur, he (peace be upon him) said: . So, if changing evil by hand is what one fears might lead to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), this also leads us to changing evil by tongue, because even by tongue, some evil might occur. So we must address both denunciations together, whether the denunciation is by hand or by tongue. Does the Muslim ask, does the Muslim wonder: Is it permissible to denounce evil by tongue? If we say it is not permissible, it cannot be said: Is it permissible to denounce evil by hand? Because it is explicitly stated in the hadith, so a fortiori, it cannot be said: Is it permissible to change evil by tongue? But the observation returns to that observation, which is that it seems our brothers want to say: Is it permissible to change evil by hand? And I add: and by tongue, if harm follows from it. This is how the question is posed by any Muslim, no matter how shallow his culture, who does not ask: Is it permissible to denounce evil by hand or by tongue? If there is no harm, this does not cross a Muslim's mind. Rather, it means: If harm follows from denouncing evil by hand or by tongue, is it permissible? The answer is: It may be permissible and it may not be permissible. The matter returns to estimating the harm that is thought to occur if the evil is changed by hand or by tongue. The scholars here say two words of truth: if the harm that is thought to occur is greater than the benefit, then enjoining good and forbidding evil is postponed, by hand or by tongue. But if no harm greater than the benefit occurs, then always and always, absolutely, harm follows from denouncing evil by hand or by tongue, but this harm is not a Shari'ah harm, meaning that the Lawgiver forbids causing it, because the benefit that follows from denouncing evil by hand or by tongue is much greater than that harm. It is known in the Shari'ah that one of the names of the Noble Qur'an is al-Furqan (the Criterion). Why? Because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) distinguishes by it between truth and falsehood. And few know that one of the names of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is al-Fariq (the Distinguisher). Few know that one of the names of the Messenger (peace be upon him) is al-Fariq or al-Mufarriq, because he was the cause of distinguishing between the father and the son. And history happens with this often and very often. Now, distinguishing between the father and the son is a harm, but it is not a Shari'ah harm, as long as the cause that resulted in this distinction is the cause of calling to tawhid (the oneness of Allah), to the Book of Allah, and to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So, if the caller calls a group of people to faith, and the father believes while the son does not, and the father becomes estranged from the son, this is a harm, but the benefit is greater, or the reverse: the son believes and the father remains in his disbelief. Such a harm is not looked at at all. But if it is feared that harm greater than the benefit will follow from changing evil, whether by hand or by tongue, then it is said: Do not denounce and do not change. The example in this is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) indicated when Allah opened Makkah for him and destroyed shirk (associating partners with Allah) and its people, and he entered Makkah as a conqueror and victor, and prayed two rak'ahs inside the Ka'bah. When he came out of it, the Lady A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) wanted to pray inside the Ka'bah as well, following the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so he (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) said to her: . So he did not change the Ka'bah and left it on the construction of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, and did not restore it to the construction of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). Why? Because he feared that the weak believers, those new to Islam, might be affected, that they might regress, that they might be disturbed, and that they might say: The Ka'bah was demolished. So he left it as it was, as the people of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance had built it, and did not change the evil. From such a hadith, correct fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah forbids changing evil if harm greater than the benefit is feared from it. This is the answer to the second question.