Enjoining good and forbidding evil.

'Umar al-Ashqar:The Shaykh : The reason for the calamity befalling the president of the Society for the Revival of Heritage is that he passed by a group stealing from the Iraqis, so he forbade them, and they took him. He remained in prison for the time he did, and he was tortured as he was.

The Shaykh : We have heard of this, unfortunately.
'Umar al-Ashqar: I mean, it was all because he enjoined good and forbade evil, and that is why the trials occurred.

The Shaykh : But the situation is different there, I mean, between confronting those who want to and have transgressed, and half the people being against each other, there is a difference.
'Umar al-Ashqar: Yes, yes, that is correct.

The Shaykh : However, it is not hidden from you that the final stage in the hadith is forbidding with the heart, but this should not be the norm. Then it should not be imposed as a requirement on everyone, because people are not equal; some do not fear, as in the well-known hadith that is also known to you: Not everyone is able to say this word, but those who are able to say it are not permitted to leave it off. As for those other than them, it is sufficient for the Muslim in such a situation to narrate the hadith, because it gives to every class. And I do not mean, of course, the detail mentioned by some: "Whoever of you sees an evil, these are the rulers, and so on." This detail, as you know, has no basis. "Whoever of you sees an evil" is an address to whom? To the rulers: "Let him change it with his hand." If he cannot, then with his tongue. Who? The scholars. It is a strange thing, a suspension of the ruling.