Al-Munkar: Its Meaning, Ruling, and Levels of Changing it

 

All praise is due to Allah, who created creation so they may worship Him, endowed them with intellects so they may know Him, and bestowed upon them His apparent and hidden blessings so they may show gratitude to Him. He decreed with justice and ruled without oppression. I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Messenger. May the peace and blessings of my Lord be upon him, and upon those who follow his path, adhere to his Sunna, and emulate his way until the Day of Judgment.

Indeed, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is a distinguishing characteristic of this Ummah compared to other nations. Allah, The Exalted, Says (What means): "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah." [Al-Imran/110]. This is so that the Islamic society remains pure and virtuous, far removed from sins and wrongdoings.

However, the Muslim society is a mixture of individuals, and humans are prone to errors and falling into sins and wrongdoings. Therefore, the Prophet (PBUH) placed the responsibility upon each individual to combat these evils, which are foreign to the fabric of this community. He (PBUH) said: "Whoever among you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest of faith." [Moslim].

However, combating evil and striving to change it requires precise understanding and deep comprehension in order to yield its beneficial outcomes. It is crucial to ensure that addressing wrongdoing does not lead to an even greater evil. Some individuals, acting on the apparent meaning of this hadith, may attempt to change evil with their hands without considering the consequences.

Some may overstep boundaries by violating the sanctity and privacy of individuals, while others may justify raising arms, rebelling against a Muslim ruler, attacking public property, and terrorizing peaceful citizens under the pretext of enjoining good and forbidding evil.

This matter has become confusing for many people during this critical phase that the Islamic world is experiencing. It necessitates a precise and enlightened scholarly study, guided by the Book of Allah, the Sunna of His Messenger (PBUH), and the statements of the scholars, so that we act with insight and base our judgments on individuals and institutions according to the correct methodology, free from suspicion or baseless accusations. Scholars must preserve the bonds of knowledge that unite them and advise one another sincerely to reach the desired truth, thereby absolving themselves before Allah The Almighty, without succumbing to personal desires or allegiance to any party or group.

What is the meaning of "Al-Munkar"? What is its ruling? What are the conditions for changing it? What are the levels and degrees of changing it?

First: The Meaning of "Al-Munkar"

"Al-Munkar" is the opposite of "Al-Ma'ruf" (what is known and accepted). Scholars have differed in defining its meaning:

1. Some have limited it to disbelief (Kufr).

2. Others have broadened it to include all prohibited actions in Islamic law (haram).

3. Some used the term to describe anything that is forbidden in Sharia [as stated in Ahkam Al-Qur'an by Al-Jassas, Vol. 2/P.222].

4. There are also those who defined it as anything that is considered morally reprehensible by both reason and Islamic law [Lubaab At-Tawil Fi Ma'ani At-Tanzeel/Vol. 1/P.399].

5. Others took a broader view and defined "Al-Munkar" as any act that is rejected by sound nature (Fitrah), something that causes harm or discomfort, and that the soul feels repelled by, especially when it is publicly displayed. This includes actions that are both prohibited by Sharia and offensive to natural disposition. As stated in Al-Mawsoo'ah Al-Fiqhiyyah (Vol.17/P.251), this definition is based on the saying of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): "Virtue is good character, and sin is what troubles your soul and you dislike people to see it" [Sahih Moslim].

 

Second: The Ruling on Changing Al-Munkar

The majority of scholars agree that changing Al-Munkar (forbidding evil) is a collective obligation (Fard Kifayah) in general. This is based on the verse of the Qur'an: "Let there arise from you a group inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong. And those will be the successful." [Al-Imran/104].

However, changing Al-Munkar may sometimes become an individual obligation (Fard 'Ayn), such as in the case of leaders, rulers, and those appointed by the authorities. This is supported by the verse: "Those to whom We have given the power in the land establish prayer, give Zakah, enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of all matters." [Al-Hajj/41].

It also applies to individuals who are in a position where they are the only ones aware of what is good and what is bad, or where only they have the ability to change it. This applies, for example, to a husband, father, or anyone in a similar situation.

Furthermore, denouncing Al-Munkar with the heart (i.e., rejecting it internally) is an individual obligation for every accountable person, as stated by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): "And that is the weakest of faith." [Sahih Moslim].

Changing Al-Munkar may be Forbidden in the Following Cases:

1. For the ignorant about what is good and bad who cannot distinguish between them. It would be forbidden in this case because such a person might command what is wrong and forbid what is right.

2. When changing the Munkar leads to a greater evil, for example, forbidding the drinking of alcohol leads to the killing of someone. In such a case, it would be forbidden because the harm caused would exceed the benefit.

Changing Al-Munkar could also be discouraged (Makruh) if it leads to committing something disliked, or it could be recommended (Mandoob) if it prevents something disliked or promotes something recommended.

The ruling on changing Al-Munkar might be to pause or refrain when the potential benefit and harm are equal. Since achieving good and preventing harm is a principle in enjoining good and forbidding evil, if both benefits and harms are present, then if the benefit can be achieved while preventing harm, one should act in line with God's command: "So fear Allah as much as you are able." [At-Taghabun/16].

If it is impossible to prevent the harm, then the harm should be avoided even if the benefit is lost. As Allah Says (What means) "They ask you about wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." [Al-Baqarah/219].

This deep understanding, if applied to reality, helps us balance the desired benefits of public protests or demonstrations with the potential harms, such as the risk of bloodshed, causing fear among the public, damaging private and public property, and disrupting the normal functioning of society. In such cases, it becomes clear that such actions may be forbidden if the harm outweighs the potential good.

Third: Conditions for Changing Al-Munkar

The scholars have stipulated several conditions for the Munkar that needs to be changed. The most important conditions are:

1. The first condition: The action must be an actual Munkar, meaning it is something prohibited or unlawful in Islamic law. Al-Ghazali stated, "The Munkar is broader than just disobedience, for if one sees a child or a mentally ill person drinking alcohol, they must pour the alcohol away and prevent them from doing so... since a sin cannot occur from someone who is not accountable." [Ihya' Ulum Al-Din, Vol.2/P.414].

2. The second condition: The Munkar must be present at the moment, meaning that the person must be continuously engaging in the sinful act. For example, if someone drinks alcohol and has finished drinking, then the prohibition would not apply to that specific instance. However, if there is a clear indication that the person intends to drink again later, then advice or guidance should be given. If it is certain that the person is intending to drink again, then giving advice is permitted, but if their intention is unclear, it is not appropriate to intervene in a manner that would harm their dignity or make unjust assumptions about them. [Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin, p. 117].

The scholars have made exceptions to this, noting two specific cases:

1. The first case: Persistent involvement in sinful actions without repentance. In such cases, it is obligatory to reject and condemn the action.

2. The second case: Rejecting and condemning those who follow corrupt ideologies and innovations (Bid'ah) that go against Islamic teachings. Al-Ghazali said: "All innovations should have their doors closed and the innovators must be rebuked, even if they believe that what they are doing is the truth." [Ihya' Ulum Al-Din, Vol. 2/P. 417].

 

The third condition: The Munkar must be apparent. The wisdom behind this is that we are commanded to base our judgment of people on their outward actions, without delving into their inner intentions. As stated in Al-Jami' li Ahkam Al-Qur'an [Vol.16/P.333], Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "There were people who were guided by revelation during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and revelation has ceased. Now, we judge you based on what appears to us from your actions. If someone shows us good, we trust and draw close to him, and we do not concern ourselves with his inner thoughts. Only Allah will judge his inner intentions. But if someone shows us evil, we do not trust him or believe him, even if he claims his inner intentions are good."

This is because a person who hides their wrongdoings still has a trace of modesty, and modesty is part of faith. Every person has their privacy, and homes have their sanctity. Therefore, the wrong that should be changed is the one that is openly displayed and apparent to others. Spying or eavesdropping on others is prohibited. It is narrated that once, Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) suspected that someone was doing something improper in his home. He climbed over the wall and entered unexpectedly. When the man saw him, he asked, "What is this?" The man replied: "O Commander of the Believers, if I have made one mistake, you have made three." Umar asked, "What are they?" The man replied: "O Commander of the Believers, Allah says: 'Enter homes through their doors' (Al-Baqarah,189), but you climbed over the wall; and He says, 'Do not spy on one another' [Al-Hujurat/12], but you have spied on us; and He says, 'Do not enter houses until you have asked permission and greeted the people of the house' [An-Nur, 27], but you did not ask permission or greet us." Upon hearing this, Umar smiled.

The Fourth Condition: The Wrongdoing Must Be Known Without Ijtihad

A wrongdoing that is a matter of Ijtihad (independent reasoning) does not fall under the category of enforceable accountability. As stated in [Ihya’ ‘Ulum Al-Din/Vol.2/P.416], anything that is open to Ijtihad should not be subject to enjoining good or forbidding evil. For instance, a Hanafi scholar cannot object to a Shafi'i scholar for eating without saying "Bismillah" (the invocation of Allah’s name before eating), as this is a difference in school of thought, not a clear-cut issue of prohibited action [Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin/117].

As mentioned in Al-Fawakih Al-Dawani (Vol.2/P.392), for a wrongdoing to be subject to change, it must be something unanimously agreed upon as prohibited or have weak evidence supporting its permissibility.

Matters that have been unanimously agreed upon by scholars, such as specific actions, words, or legal rulings (for example, in worship, transactions, or marriage) are clear, and the responsibility for changing such wrongdoings lies with scholars, not the general public. Thus, the common people have no role in this, and it is exclusively within the purview of scholars (Al-Mawsu'ah Al-Fiqhiyyah Al-Kuwaitiyyah, Vol. 17/P.258). Therefore, in such cases, the change of wrongdoing should be carried out only by knowledgeable individuals.

Fourth: The Levels of Changing Al-Munkar/Wrongdoing

There is no doubt that denouncing wrongdoing in the heart is the lowest level of changing it, as explicitly stated in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), describing it as "the weakest of faith." Therefore, denouncing wrongdoing in the heart is an obligation upon every accountable Muslim. Scholars have outlined the levels of changing wrongdoing, which can be summarized as follows:

First Level:

Reminder and Awareness: A person may engage in wrongdoing unknowingly, not realizing it is wrong. If they are made aware, they may desist. In such cases, it is necessary to inform them with kindness, as no one is born knowledgeable. For instance, someone may not perform acts of worship with their correct pillars and conditions. Such a person should be gently reminded and corrected with compassion and tact. "Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin," pp. 117; "Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence," 17/265.

Second Level:

Prohibition through advice and warning about Allah: This applies to someone who knowingly commits a wrongdoing while being aware of its prohibition. The one commanding good and forbidding evil should advise them, remind them, and instill fear of Allah in them. They should be warned with the teachings about punishment and reminded of the exemplary lives of the righteous predecessors. This should be done with kindness and compassion, avoiding harshness or anger.

Here, a significant pitfall must be avoided: the one commanding good and forbidding evil might view themselves as superior because of their knowledge and see the other as inferior due to ignorance. This is akin to saving others from fire while setting oneself ablaze. Therefore, the individual must ensure their intention is pure. If they find the act of commanding good and forbidding evil burdensome and wish someone else could do it instead, this indicates a sincere drive stemming from faith. However, if they act to showcase their authority or bolster their reputation through this task, they are following their desires. In such a case, they should fear Allah and begin by rectifying their own self. [Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin/ pp. 118].

It was said to Dawood Al-Ta'i: "What do you say about a man who enters upon rulers and commands them to do good and forbids them from doing evil?" He replied: "I fear the whip for him." It was said: "He can endure that." Dawood said: "I fear the sword for him." They said: "He can endure that too." Dawood then said: "I fear for him the hidden disease of arrogance." [Source: Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin].

Thus, those who use enjoining good and forbidding evil as a means to achieve personal goals or advance private agendas, seeking fame or prestige, must beware. They should realize that the desire for recognition destroys one's integrity. As mentioned in Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin, such individuals must first hold themselves accountable and fear Allah The Almighty.

The third level:

Reprimanding, rebuking, and sternly admonishing through harsh words and strong condemnation. This is directed at those for whom gentle advice and warnings do not work, but instead exhibit signs of persistence in wrongdoing and mockery of counsel. This approach should avoid vulgarity, excessiveness, or falsehood. Instead, one might say: "O sinner, O ignorant one, do you not fear Allah?" as exemplified by Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) in the Quran: "Fie upon you and what you worship besides Allah! Do you not use reason?" [Al-Anbiya/67].

[Source: Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin, p. 118; Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence, Vol. 17/P.266].

The fourth level:

Changing with physical action, such as breaking musical instruments, pouring out alcohol, or evicting someone from a usurped property. Scholars have outlined two key conditions for this:

1. Delegating the responsibility first: One should not take direct action unless they are unable to compel the wrongdoer to rectify their own behavior. For instance, if it is possible to persuade someone to leave the usurped property on their own, one should not resort to forcibly removing them.

2. Proportionate action: When breaking musical instruments, it should be done in a manner that renders them unusable but does not go beyond what is necessary. Similarly, when pouring out alcohol, one should avoid breaking the containers if possible; however, breaking them is permitted if no other option exists.

The author of Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin highlights an important issue here: whether it is permissible to take these actions as a form of deterrence. For example, forcibly dragging someone out of a usurped property or breaking objects to deter others. He concludes that such measures are only permissible for authorities (such as rulers or officials) and not for ordinary individuals, to avoid chaos and misuse of personal judgment. [Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin/p.119].

The fifth level:

Imposing punishment through disciplinary measures such as beating, applied to those who openly commit wrongdoing and persist in displaying it, where the wrong cannot be stopped by other means. [Al-Mawsu’ah Al-Fiqhiyyah/p.617]. Such punishment must be limited to the minimum necessary to end the wrongdoing. Once the misconduct has ceased, further action should stop immediately.

However, it is preferable to precede the punishment with verbal threats and warnings. For example, one might say: "Stop this, or I will do such-and-such to you." It is essential that such threats do not involve actions that are impermissible to carry out, such as saying: "I will loot your home" or "I will take your wife as Sabi (i.e. war prisoners, children and woman only)."

If these statements are made with the intention to act upon them, they are considered sinful. If said without any intention of following through, they amount to falsehood, which is also impermissible. [Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin/p. 119].

The Sixth Level:

Referring the matter to the ruler or the leader, as they possess general authority and the ability to enforce resolutions. However, if immediate action is necessary to prevent the loss of an opportunity to rectify the wrongdoing, the individual responsible for enjoining good and forbidding evil must take appropriate action as required by the situation (Ihya Ulum al-Din, p. 420).

It is crucial to address an important matter here: how should one handle wrongdoing if it is committed by leaders and rulers? Scholars unanimously agree on the obligation to obey rulers and those in authority in matters that do not involve sin and on the prohibition of obeying them in sinful actions [Sharh Al-Nawawi Ala Muslim/Vol.12/P.220].

Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that rectifying the wrongdoing of leaders should be limited to explanation and admonition only. Taking actions beyond this can incite discord and provoke greater harm, leading to consequences more severe than the wrongdoing itself [Ihya Ulum Al-Din/ Vol.2/P.343].

As for speaking harshly to rulers with words such as "O oppressor" or "You who do not fear Allah," if such speech incites discord that harms others, it is impermissible. However, if the harm is limited to oneself, the majority of scholars permit it.

The author of Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Qasidin states: "What I believe is that such speech should be avoided because when rulers hear words like 'O oppressor' or 'O sinner' from one of their subjects, they perceive it as ultimate humiliation and cannot tolerate it."

He also provides numerous examples from the lives of our righteous predecessors, illustrating how they addressed wrongdoing in their time and how they advised those in positions of authority through gentle admonition and explanation [Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidin/p.123].

Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "No one should enjoin good or forbid evil unless they possess three qualities:

1. Knowledge of what they are commanding.

2. Knowledge of what they are forbidding.

3. Justice in what they command and forbid.

4. Gentleness in what they command and forbid."

 

A man entered upon Al-Ma'mun, the Caliph of the Muslims, and began to rebuke him harshly, saying: "O man, O sinner, and so on." Al-Ma'mun, who was known for his wisdom and intelligence, responded to him calmly: "O you, indeed, Allah sent someone better than you to someone worse than me, and He commanded him to speak gently. Allah sent Musa and Harun, who were better than you, to Pharaoh, who was worse than me. And Allah commanded them: 'Go to Pharaoh, indeed he has transgressed. But speak to him with gentle speech, perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allah]." [Taha/43-44]." The man felt ashamed.

Indeed, the Ummah is in dire need of a deep understanding of the principles of enjoining good and forbidding evil, so that its unity is preserved, its words are gathered, its divisions are mended, and it is safeguarded from falling into the pitfalls that undermine its unity and strength. These divisions can lead to the shedding of innocent blood and the destruction of its institutions, all without justification, and for whose benefit?

And Allah, The Exalted, speaks the truth when He Says (What means}: "And do not dispute and thereby lose courage and your strength would depart." [Al-Anfal/46].

Our final supplication is that all praise is due to Allah, The Lord of all Worlds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

هذا المقال يعبر عن رأي كاتبه، ولا يعبر بالضرورة عن رأي دائرة الإفتاء العام