New Age Islam
Wed Jan 19 2022, 05:34 AM

Radical Islamism and Jihad ( 14 Jun 2013, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Comment | Comment

The Duty to Enjoin Good and Forbid Evil – Part 2


The implementation of the Shariah is the mission of the Taliban but the unfortunate aspect of this mission is that they interpret the Islamic laws relating to the implementation of Shariah as forceful and often violent enforcement of their version of Wahhabi Islam that does not leave any room for personal freedom in matters of Deen clearly mentioned in Quran.

In every sphere of life, people with canes and lashes will move about forcing people to act according to their interpretation of good and evil. For example, the members of ‘Amr bil Ma’ruf nahi Anil Munkar’ will roam the streets and prevent girls from going to school as it is against the Shariah, according to their understanding of Islam.

There will be groups in offices, schools, colleges, markets where they will watch people and force them to act according to their diktats. They can even enter houses without the permission of the owner of the house and inquire about the violation of Shariah by the members of the house. The basis of the article is a Hadith about ‘Amr bil Ma’ruf nahi Anil Munkar’ which has been interpreted as the basis of a group which will take the law in its own hand and punish people for alleged violations of Shariah laws. There have been reports of human rights violations by such Jihadi groups where the so-called members of ‘Amr bil Ma’ruf nahi Anil Munkar’ in the conflict ridden zones of Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan took the law into their own hands and ‘punished’ the ‘offenders’.

We are reproducing the English translation of the 2nd part of the article titled ‘The duty to enjoin good and forbid evil in Islam’ published in the June 2013 of the Taliban mouthpiece, Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad which presents their advocacy of a rigid interpretation of the implementation of Shariah. – New Age Islam Edit Desk


By Maulana Abdul Wahhab Hashmi, Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad

June, 2013

If an elderly person is present in a village or township, he will perform the duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil. If the Islamic system is implemented in the area, the head of the area has the duty to forbid evil by force. If those who do not have ‘sult’ (authority) to carry out the duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, they will do so with their tongue. If they are so weak that they cannot even do that by tongue or verbally, they can carry out the duty in their heart. How will they do that in their heart? To hate evil in the heart, to have grudge in the heart and have the desire to root our evil in the heart is the third degree of Iman. This is for those who can do this neither verbally nor by force.

Enjoining good and forbidding evil by force, verbally and in the heart should also be seen in a different context. These three options should be used also on the basis of the expected result or consequence. Of course, you have ‘Sult’ (authority). You are the father, so you have the authority. You are the teacher, so you have the authority. You are the head of the group, so you have the authority. If you forbid evil by force and as a consequence a greater evil arises out in reaction, in that case, despite having ‘Sult’ (authority), you will not do it by force but you will do your duty only verbally. If you forbid an evil verbally and even then a greater mischief or evil arises in reaction to you verbal forbidding, then you will not forbid it even verbally and do it in your heart.

In other words, the actual authority or power is one that is recognised and obeyed by the addressee. That is, authority is synonymous with writ. For example, some of you will say, ‘well, you talk of authority so we Mujahideens (holy warriors) have Kalashnikovs here. Don’t we have authority?’ If one of us hears the sound of music coming out from the house of the neighbour and goes there to find out who is committing the sin of listening to music. A man comes out of the house and says, ‘I will not stop the music. Who are you to forbid me from listening to music?’ Will you shoot him? You are forbidding him from listening to music because music is Haram. Music is mischief. But if you kill you neighbour only on this ground, it will not be appropriate from any angle. Music is definitely Haram but is the murder of a Muslim a greater crime or sin or music? The unlawfulness of shedding of a Muslim’s blood is greater than that of music. Therefore, you should understand that you do not have authority in this case. You will not stop him by force but will try to stop him verbally.

Take another example. You are three brothers at home. Your father is also present. Suppose that one of your brothers is shameless and away from religious teachings. He has got cable TV connection at home. He plays music and films at home. Obviously, these are evil things. Father who is the head of the family has the authority. You father comes in and tells his son to stop the evil and throws the TV outside. He can do this easily. But you are his brother. Now tell me, if you do the same thing and go to your brother’s room and throw the TV set on the ground, what will be the result? Do you have authority in your house? Obviously, no. In this case, your brother will fight with you. Peace of the house will be disturbed. The situation may take a violent turn and both of you may take up arms and then... bloodshed. Therefore, think over it. You do not have authority. But if you say, ‘no sir, I possess a pistol; I will go to his room and will stop the evil at gunpoint.’

Please remember, this authority is not acceptable to your brother. It is possible that he will become so hostile that the situation will reach the point of bloodshed and murder. In this situation, it will not be appropriate for you to stop him by force but because of lack of authority or for the fear of another mischief, you will use the second option and will try to stop him only verbally. (To be concluded)

Source: Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad, June 2013

URL of Part 1: