What is the criterion for forbidding evil and not forbidding it in matters of independent legal reasoning?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Your Eminence! What is the criterion for forbidding evil and not forbidding it in matters of independent legal reasoning?
The Shaykh : The criterion is that in scientific matters, one must forbid evil, because they are matters of the unseen in which a person must not exceed the explicit text. As for practical matters, if something contradicts an explicit text that does not admit of figurative interpretation, it is forbidden; if it contradicts evidence that admits of figurative interpretation, it is not forbidden. This is the criterion. For this reason, we forbid those who distort words from their proper places regarding the names and attributes of Allah or regarding the Hereafter, because these are purely scientific, narrative matters in which nothing else can be introduced.
As for matters of independent legal reasoning, one also looks at this: if the text is clear, he is forbidden; if it is not clear and admits of figurative interpretation, he is not forbidden. An example of this is two men who ate camel meat, one of whom believes it breaks the ablution and the other believes it does not. This is a practical matter of independent legal reasoning, so neither forbids the other. That is, if the one who ate, believing it does not break the ablution, stood up and prayed in front of him, I would consider this prayer invalid in my view, but it is not invalid in his view. For this reason, it is permissible for him 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 Shaykh : The criterion is that in scientific matters, one must forbid evil, because they are matters of the unseen in which a person must not exceed the explicit text. As for practical matters, if something contradicts an explicit text that does not admit of figurative interpretation, it is forbidden; if it contradicts evidence that admits of figurative interpretation, it is not forbidden. This is the criterion. For this reason, we forbid those who distort words from their proper places regarding the names and attributes of Allah or regarding the Hereafter, because these are purely scientific, narrative matters in which nothing else can be introduced.
As for matters of independent legal reasoning, one also looks at this: if the text is clear, he is forbidden; if it is not clear and admits of figurative interpretation, he is not forbidden. An example of this is two men who ate camel meat, one of whom believes it breaks the ablution and the other believes it does not. This is a practical matter of independent legal reasoning, so neither forbids the other. That is, if the one who ate, believing it does not break the ablution, stood up and prayed in front of him, I would consider this prayer invalid in my view, but it is not invalid in his view. For this reason, it is permissible for him 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.