Issue 980: Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is a collective duty and if one of those who are legally obliged and responsible (Mukallaf) undertakes it, others will no more be responsible to undertake it; and if in doing so, it is necessary that a group of obliged and responsible people act together, it will be obligatory for them to collaborate on it.

Issue 981: The purpose of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is to enforce the religious obligations and prohibit the illegal acts; thus, in doing so, the intention of Qurbah (growing close to Allah) is not valid.

Issue 982: If some people undertake to enjoin the good and forbid the evil in some case, but they do not prove effective, and if some others think that they will likely be effective in doing so, it will be obligatory for the latter to undertake it.

Issue 983: Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil become obligatory under the following conditions:

1- The person who intends to undertake it should know that what the obliged person is avoiding or abandoning is an obligation, and/or what they are doing is illegal and must be stopped; thus, it will not be obligatory for them to undertake it if they do not have the knowledge of religious obligations and prohibitions.

2- The person who intends to undertake it should know that they will likely be effective in doing that, and if they are sure that they will not be effective, it will not be obligatory to do it.

3- The person who intends to undertake it should be certain that the sinner is determined to repeat the sin; therefore, if one knows or reasonably guesses or thinks that it is a reasonable probability that the sinner does not intend to repeat the sin, it will not be obligatory for them to do it.

4- There should not be any corruption in enjoining the good forbidding the evil which would matter more than the avoidance of the good or doing the evil; therefore, if one knows or guesses reasonably or if it is a rational probability that enjoining the good and/or forbidding the evil may inflict any considerable physical or economic harm on someone, their relatives, or some of the believers, or if it may lead to the destruction of their reputation, it will not be obligatory for one to undertake to enjoin the good or forbid the evil, and it is even legally forbidden in many such cases.

Issue 984: If there is a reasonable probability that silence may lead others to take the good as the evil or vice versa, it will be obligatory especially for great learned Muslim scholars to recognize, exercise and assert the rights, and it is not permissible for them to remain silent.

Issue 985: There are some stages in enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and if it is likely that a lower stage is effective, it will not be permissible to act through the upper stages.

Issue 986: The first stage is to treat the sinner in such a way that they understand they are being treated like that for the sin they committed; for example, one may turn their face away from the sinner or frown and glare at them. One may also stop socializing with the sinner in a manner that they understand all this is done to stop them committing that sin.

Issue 987: The second stage, in enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is to talk with the sinner. So, if it is likely that it is effective, and if the other conditions exist, it will be obligatory to talk with the sinner in order to make them stop committing the sin or to take on the obligation which they have abandoned.

Issue 988: If one knows that advice is not effective in some case, and if they think that ordering the sinner to stop committing the sin or to take on the obligation which they have abandoned is likely to be effective, it will be obligatory to give such orders, and if orders are also likely to be infective, they should speak with the sinner harshly and severely and threaten him; however this severity must not lead to any sort of annoyance and disturbance and one must avoid lying or committing any other sin in doing this.

Issue 989: It is not permissible to commit a sinful act like lying or insulting to stop a sin, unless the sin is one of crucial importance to the Saint Legislator such that they would, by no means, consent to it, for instance, when it is the case of an illegal murder; in the latter cases, it is permissible to take action in any possible way to stop the sin.

Q990: What is the case of waking the children up for dawn prayer while they would never wake up to offer their prayer themselves?

A: If it does not lead to the depreciation of prayer, and if the children do not consent to be woken for prayer, it will not be allowable to wake them up.

Q991: What should a man do if his wife, despite being religious and offering her prayers, doubts some of the Quranic verses on women’s share of inheritance, women’s testimony (the testimony of two women is worth one of a man), the one fifth levy (khums) etc., and even disseminates her ideas and thoughts such that her children share the same beliefs and refuse to accept any reason and evidence concerning those issues? And what will the father of a family be obliged to do if the children offer their prayers indolently while their mother offers her prayers but often within the last minutes of the prescribed time?

A: In all of the above cases, the husband or the father just has to advise them to the extent that it would not harm their family life.

Q992: As you know, based on the Islamic laws, Muslims should not only try to protect the sinners’ reputation, but also avoid beating or inflicting any harm on them or even avoid taking any sort of verbal action against them (unless it is the case of retaliation (Quisas) for something which is determined by the Islamic court), particularly, when it is the case of a person whose sinful act has not been proven yet? What is your view on beating, inflicting severe physical punishments and damaging the reputation of those who are just suspects and not proven guilty yet, which sometimes takes place in some state sectors? Are such actions approved by Islam?

A: It is not permissible to inflict any physical harm on some one to damage one’s reputation before one’s being guilty is proven by the competent court, and it is legally forbidden to oppress or torture others; even when someone is proven guilty, they should be punished according to the verdict of a competent court and also according to the Islamic laws. This is the general rule concerning your question and I do not know about particular personal cases.