Necessity of Publicly Antagonising Propagators of Misguidanc

Know that all who love for Allāh must hate for Allāh, since when you love a person because he obeys Allāh and is beloved to Allāh, then if he disobeys Him, you must then hate him because he disobeys Allāh and is disliked by Him. One who loves for a cause, he must then, by necessity, hate on account of its opposite. These two things are concomitants [of one another], one not separating from the other. This also applies to love and hate in non-religious matters.

However, both love and hate are conditions buried in the heart, and it only comes out at the point of being overpowering. It comes out with the appearance of the acts of lovers and haters – in becoming near or distant, in disunity or unity. When it becomes manifest in action, it is called: friendliness (muwālāt) or hostility (mu‘ādāt). This is why Allāh (Exalted is He) said: “Have you befriended a friend of Mine and have you shown hostility to an enemy of Mine?” [1] as we have quoted.

This is obvious with respect to one whose obedience alone is obvious to you, since you are able to love him; or one whose wickedness and sinfulness and his bad characteristics alone are obvious to you, since you are able to hate him. The problem is only when acts of obedience are mixed with sins. Then you will ask: “Can I combine hate and love, when they are opposites?! Also, can I combine the conflicting outcomes of hate and love, whether unity/disunity or friendliness/hostility?”

I say: This is not a contradiction with respect to Allāh (Exalted is He) just as it is not a contradiction in human feelings: since whenever traits come together in a single person, some of which are desired and some of which are disliked, you will love him from one angle and hate him from another. One who has a beautiful sinful wife, or a smart and helpful but sinful son, he will love them from one perspective and hate them from another, and he will be with them in a condition between the two conditions. If it were supposed that one has three sons: one is smart and obedient, the other idiotic and disobedient and the third, idiotic and obedient or smart and disobedient, he will find himself in three variant states with them according to the variation in their qualities; and so should your condition vary according to three levels with respect to one dominated by wickedness, one dominated by obedience, and one in whom both are combined – and that is by giving each characteristic its share of hate and love, aversion and attachment, companionship and disassociation, and all actions proceeding from them.

If you ask: Every Muslim’s acceptance of Islām is obedience from him, so how can I hate him despite him being Muslim? I say: You love him for his being Muslim and you hate him for his sin, and you will be with him in a condition, had you analogised it to the condition of a disbeliever or a wicked person, you will perceive a difference between them – and that difference is the love for being Muslim and fulfilment of its due.

The degree of violating the right of Allāh (Exalted is He) and obedience to Him is like violating your right and obedience to you. Thus, one who agrees with you in an agenda of yours, and disagrees with you in another, you will be with him in an intermediary state between being completely closed off and completely opening up, and between attachment and aversion, and between love for him and alienation from him, and so you will not go into excess in honouring him in the way you would go into excess in honouring one who agrees with you in all your agendas, and nor will you go into excess in dishonouring him in the way you would go into excess in dishonouring one who disagrees with you in all your agendas. Further, this intermediary [state] will at times incline towards the side of dishonouring when there is a dominance of violation, and at times to the side of being gentle and honouring when there is dominance of agreement. And so should one be with one who obeys Allāh (Exalted is He) and disobeys Him, at times coming into His pleasure and at times into His displeasure.

If you ask: How should hatred be shown? I say: As far as speech is concerned, [it is] sometimes by restraining the tongue from speaking to and conversing with him, and sometimes by belittling and being harsh in words. As far as practice is concerned, [it is] at times by cutting off efforts made to assist him, and at times by making efforts to harm him and spoil his objectives. Some of these are more severe than others, and it is in accordance with the degrees of sin and wickedness that emerge from him.

As for what occurs as a slip that one knows he is remorseful over and will not persist on it, it is better to keep it concealed and turn a blind eye to it. As for what he persists on, whether a minor or major sin, if it is from someone between yourself and whom love, friendship and brotherhood have been established, it has a different rule that will come later, and there is disagreement in it between the scholars. As far as when brotherhood and friendship are not established is concerned, there must be some expression of the outcome of hatred, either in aversion and being distant from him and paying little attention to him, or in belittling and using harsh words about him – and this is more severe than aversion, and it is in accordance with the heaviness or lightness of the sin.

Likewise, in terms of action, there are also two degrees. One is cutting off support, help and assistance from him, and this is the least degree. The other is working towards spoiling his objectives, just like the action of enemies who harbour hate, and this is necessary, but [only] in what will make the means towards sin hard for him, and in something that will have an effect on him. As for something that will not have an effect on him, then no.

An example of this is a man who disobeys Allāh by drinking wine, and he had proposed to a woman had it been possible for him to marry her, he would be happy with her for reasons of wealth, beauty and status, but it will have no effect in stopping him from drinking wine, nor in pushing him and encouraging him towards it. If you are able to help him to accomplish his objective and purpose, and you are also able to entangle him so he loses his objective, you may not make an effort to entangle him. As for helping him, if you were to leave it for the purpose of showing hatred towards him on account of his sinfulness, there is no problem; but leaving it is not necessary, since you may have an intention in being gentle in giving him support and showing him pity so that he believes you have love [for him] and accepts your advice – then this is good. And if you do not anticipate that from him, but you feel that you [ought to] help him in his purpose in fulfilment of the right of him being a Muslim, then that is not prohibited. In fact, this is best when his sin is a violation of your right or the right of one connected to you.

On this, was revealed His (Exalted is He) statement: “Possessors of bounty and expanse amongst you must not take oath,” up to His (Exalted is He) statement: “Do you not love that Allāh forgives you?” (Qur’ān, 24:22) when Misṭaḥ ibn Uthāthah spoke on the Incident of Slander and Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him) took an oath that he will cut off his support from him, while he would support him with money, upon which this verse was revealed despite the enormity of Misṭaḥ’s sin. Which sin exceeds violating the sanctity of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and extending the tongue over the like of ‘Ā’ishah (Allāh be pleased with her)?! However, al-Ṣiddīq (Allāh be pleased with him) was like one who was violated against in respect to himself in that incident, and pardoning one who wrongs [oneself] and showing good to one who is bad [to oneself] is from the characteristics of the Truthful Saints [ṣiddīqīn], and it is only good to be good to the one who oppressed you [and not others].

As for one who oppresses another, and disobeys Allāh thereby, it is not good to show goodness to him, since in showing goodness to the oppressor there is hurt to the oppressed, and the right of the one oppressed is more deserving of being observed, and strengthening his heart by turning away from the oppressor is more beloved to Allāh than strengthening the heart of the oppressor. But when you yourself are the one oppressed, it is best with respect to you to pardon and overlook. The ways of the pious predecessors, Allāh be pleased with them, would differ in expressing hatred for the sake of Allāh towards the perpetrators of sins, whereas all of them agreed on expressing hatred for the oppressors and innovators, and all who disobeyed Allāh with a sin that extends from himself to others.

But as for one who disobeys Allāh by himself, some of them looked at all sinners with the eye of compassion and some of them were strong in condemnation and chose disassociation. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, may Allāh have mercy on him, would disassociate from the Elders in the slightest matter, such that he abandoned Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn on account of his statement: “I will not ask anyone anything, but if the sulṭān brought something to me I will take it.” He abandoned Ḥārith al-Muḥāsibī for compiling a refutation of the Mu‘tazilah, saying: “You must first present their doubts and drive people to contemplating about them, and then refute them.” He abandoned Abū Thawr on account of his figurative interpretation of his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) statement: “Allāh surely created Ādam in His/his image.”

This is a matter that varies based on the difference in intention, and intention differs based on different conditions. If what dominates the heart is looking at the compulsion of creation and their helplessness, and that they are subject to what has been decreed for them, that creates some ease in hostility and hatred, and it has some grounds, but it may be confused with sycophancy (mudāhanah), since the majority of motives in turning a blind eye to sins is sycophancy and observing [people’s] feelings and fearing desertion and aversion from them; the Satan may mix that up to the stupid fool with looking [at the sinner] with the eye of compassion. The test of that is that one looks at him with the eye of compassion if he violates his personal right and says: “It was out of his control, caution is of no avail from the [Divine] Decree, and how could he not do it when it was written from him?” For such a person, it would be valid for him to turn a blind eye to violation of Allāh’s (Exalted is He) right. But if he becomes enraged at a violation of his own right and shows mercy to violation of the right of Allāh (Exalted is He), this is a sycophant deluded by a ploy from the ploys of Satan, and so should be aware of that.

If you ask: The least degree of showing hatred is disassociation and aversion, and cutting off support and assistance, but is that obligatory such that a person will be sinful for not doing so? I say: In External Knowledge, this does not fall under compulsion and obligation, since we know that those who drank wine and perpetrated evils in the time of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and the Companions were not abandoned totally, but were divided amongst them to those who would use harsh words and express hatred for him and those who would turn away from him and not interact with him and those who would look at him with the eye of compassion and not give preference to dissociation and being distant.

Thus, these are religious subtleties in which the ways of those who are treading on the path of ākhirah differ, and the practice of each one is according to what his condition and time demands. The demand of the circumstances in these matters is either reprehensible or desirable, so it will be at the rank of virtues, and will not end up at being prohibited or made obligatory – since that which is included within obligation is the essence of recognition of Allāh (Exalted is He) and the essence of love, and that may not extend from the One Loved to another. [Love] that extends is only excessive love and one that overpowers [the heart], and that is not at all included in fatwā or under external obligation with respect to the common people.

If you say: Showing hatred and enmity in practice, if not obligatory, it is undoubtedly desirable, and sinners and wicked people are of different degrees, so how will distinction be achieved in dealing with them? Will they all be dealt with equally?

Know that the one who opposes the command of Allāh (Glorified is He) is not devoid of either opposing [Him] in his belief or in his practice, and the one opposing [Him] in belief is either an innovator or a disbeliever, and the innovator is either propagating his innovation or is silent and the one silent is [silent] either because of his inability or out of choice. Thus, the categories of corruption in belief are three:

First is disbelief. If the disbeliever is a muḥārib (resident of Dārul Ḥarb), he is deserving of killing and enslaving [2], and there is no dishonouring beyond this. As for the dhimmī (resident of Dārul Islām), he may not be harmed, except by turning away from him and belittling him by forcing him onto the narrowest path and not initiating the salām, but when he says assalāmu ‘alayka, you say wa ‘alayka, and it is better to hold back from mixing with him, dealing with him and eating with him. As for opening up to him completely just as one opens up to friends, it is reprehensible with severe reprehensibility, that which becomes intense of it almost leading to the degree of being ḥarām. Allāh (Exalted is He) says: “You will not find a group believing in Allāh and the Last Day loving one who has opposed Allāh and His Messenger, even if they are their parents, their children…” (Qur’ān, 58:22) And he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: “The Muslim and idolater, their [respective] fires are not to be visible to one another.” [3] He (Great and Glorious is He) said: “O you who believe, do not treat My enemy and your enemy as supporters.” (Qur’ān, 60:1)

The second is the innovator that propagates his innovation. If the innovation is such that he disbelieves on account of it, his matter is worse than a dhimmī (non-Muslim resident of Dārul Islām), as he does not agree to the Jizya and nor does he accept the contract of Dhimma.

But if it is of that which he does not disbelieve on account of, his matter between himself and Allāh is undoubtedly lighter than the matter of a disbeliever, but the matter in condemning him is more severe than it is for a disbeliever, because the evil of a disbeliever does not extend [beyond himself] as Muslims believe he is a disbeliever so will pay no attention to his speech as he makes no claim for himself of being a Muslim and believing the truth. As for the innovator who propagates his innovation, and claims what he calls to is true, he is a cause for the misguidance of people, and thus his evil does extend [beyond himself], so the desirability of expressing hatred of him and hostility towards him, disassociation from him and belittling him, and disparaging him for his innovation, and driving people away from him, is greater. If he says salām in private, there is no problem with replying to him, but if he knows that by turning away from him and keeping quiet from answering him will make his innovation seem disgusting to himself and will have an effect in deterring him, it will be better not to reply, because although answering the salām is obligatory, it is eliminated by the smallest objective in which there is some interest, such that it is eliminated because of a person being in the public bath or is relieving himself, and the objective of deterrence is far more important than these objectives.

If he is within a group, not answering is better in order to drive people away from him and to make his innovation seem disgusting in their eyes. Likewise, it is better to withhold being good and help from him, especially in that which is apparent to the people. He (upon him blessing and peace) said: “Whoever scolds a person of innovation, Allāh will fill his heart with peace and faith, and whoever debases a person of innovation, Allāh will grant him security on the Day of the Greatest Terror, and whoever is soft with him, honours him or meets him with cheerfulness, he has belittled what Allāh sent down on Muḥammad” [4], Allāh bless him and grant him peace.

The third is the lay innovator who is not able to propagate, and it is not feared that he will be taken as an authority. His matter is lighter. It is better to not open up with harshness and dishonouring, but gentleness is to be adopted with him in giving advice, since the hearts of the laypeople change quickly. But if advice is of no benefit and in turning away from him his innovation will seem ugly in his eyes, the desirability of turning away becomes strengthened. But if it is known that this will have no effect on him because of the stubbornness of his nature and the firmness of his belief in his heart, it is [still] better to avoid him because when showing disgust at innovation is not stressed upon, it will spread amongst people and its corruption will become widespread.

As for the one who sins in terms of practice and action, not in belief, he is not devoid of it either being such that others are harmed by it, like oppression, usurpation, false witness, backbiting, stirring up between people, carrying tales, and the likes of these which are not limited to him but harms others [or not]; and this divides into that which invites others to evil like the owner of a pub who brings together men and women and facilitates the means for drinking and corruption for the corrupt people; or it does not invite others to the act, like the one who drinks and fornicates. This – the one that does not invite others – its sin is either major or minor, and in each one he may either be persistent on it or not.

From these divisions, three types are achieved, and each type has a level, some of which are more severe than the others, so we will not follow the same path in all.

The first type, and that is the worst of them, is the one that people are harmed by, like oppression, usurpation, false testimony, backbiting and carrying tales. It is best to turn away from them, not mix with them, and to hold back from dealing with them, because the sin that goes back to harming people is severe. Further, they divide into those who cause injustice in blood and to those who cause injustice in property and those who cause injustice in honour, some being worse than others. The desirability of dishonouring them and turning away from them is emphasised a lot, and whenever deterrence of them or others is expected from dishonouring [them], the matter in this is even more emphasised and stronger.

Second, the owner of the pub who facilitates the means to sin and makes the paths towards it easy for people. He does not harm people in their present life, but by his action destroys their religion, even if it accords with their desires. Thus, it is close to the first but less than it, because a sin between the Slave and Allāh (Exalted is He) is more likely to be pardoned. But since it, in general, extends to others, it is severe. Thus this too demands dishonouring, turning away and disassociation, and to not answer the salām when one feels there will be some degree of deterrence to him or another.

The third is the one who commits debauchery by himself, in drinking wine, leaving out an obligation, or perpetrating an evil that is limited to himself. The matter in this is lighter, but at the time of committing it, if discovered, it is necessary to stop him with something that will make him desist from it, even if it is hitting and belittling, because prohibiting evil is obligatory. But once he finishes from it, and one knows that is from his normal practice and he is persistent on it, if he is sure that advising him will stop him from going back to it, giving advice is necessary, and if he is not sure but he hopes, it is best to give advice and scold him with gentleness, or with harshness if that will be more beneficial.

As for avoiding answering his salām, and holding back from mixing with him since he knows that he will persist and that advice will not be of benefit to him, this is something in which there is consideration, and the ways of the Scholars in this differ. The truth is that this differs based on the varying intention of a person. Thus, at this juncture it will be said: “Actions are based on intentions”; since in gentleness and looking with the eye of compassion at creation there is a degree of humbleness, and in harshness and turning away, there is a degree of deterrence. The one asked for a verdict on this is the heart. That which he finds to be closer to his passion and the demand of his nature, it is best to [do] its opposite, since belittling him and being harsh with him may be on account of arrogance and vanity and deriving enjoyment from showing superiority and showing off one’s piety; while one’s gentleness may be on account of sycophancy and attracting his heart to achieve one’s own interests, or for fear of the consequence to one’s reputation and wealth of being alienated and estranged [from him] based on a near or distant speculation – all of this is wavering based on allusions of Satan, and far removed from the Acts of the People of Ākhirah.

Those who desire to [practice on] acts [required by] religion apply judgement with respect to themselves in investigating these subtleties and monitoring these states. The heart is the one that issues a decree in this, and it may acquire the truth in its judgement and it may not. One may proceed in following his desire while knowing this, and he may proceed while in a delusionary state believing he is acting for Allāh and treading the path of ākhirah. An explanation of these subtleties will come in the Book of Delusion in the Quarter on Destroyers.

The matter being lighter for sinfulness that is limited [to the sinner himself], and when it is between the Slave and Allāh (Exalted is He), is indicated by what has been narrated that a drinker of wine was struck several times before the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), and he kept going back [to it], so one of the Companions said: “Allāh curse him, how much he drinks!” The Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: “Do not be a support for the Satan over your brother,” or an expression of this meaning. This was an indication that going easy is better than cruelty and being harsh [in such a case].

(Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, Dār al-Minhāj, 4:43-57)