Author: Abu Aisha
Mu’tazila (27th part)
Types of enjoining good and forbidding evil
Each of the Mu’tazila, Ahl al-Sunna, and Jama’ah has divided the good (ma’roof) and the bad (munkir) into many types, which we describe below:
Mu’tazila’s point of view
The Mu’tazila say about Ma’roof: There are two types of Ma’roof: obligatory and mandated, and commanding it is also in the same way; But they are all the same in the negative, so it is obligatory for them to forbid all inappropriate actions, whether they are abominable or haram.
Qazi Abd Al-Jabbar says in this regard: “It is known for two types: one is obligatory, and the other is not obligatory, so commanding what is obligatory is also obligatory, but commanding non-essential acts is also non-essential and has a reward; But the negation of all of them is the same, that if the conditions are met, it is obligatory to prohibit them in all cases.
In this statement of Qazi Abdul Jabbar, there was a point that is important to state, and that is that the judge considers the prohibition of evil to be obligatory if the conditions are fulfilled, so we must know what conditions they considered for enjoining good and forbidding evil, although The topic of expressing conditions is a long and comprehensive topic; But since the Sunnis also agree with the Mu’tazila in most of these conditions and in some different cases, it is appropriate to state these conditions in detail:
1: The fact that one who orders good and the one who forbids knows what is bad and what is good for the person he is ordering, or forbidding him to be bad, so that he is not ordered to do bad work and does not stop him from doing good and good deeds.
2: That there must be a denial there; Like if he sees the drinking cups prepared, or the instruments of playing and playing are present, or the musical instruments are gathered there.
3: If he knows that enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil does not lead to greater harm than that, if he knew or had the prevailing suspicion that his prohibition of drinking wine would lead to the killing of a group of Muslims or the burning of a neighborhood, then the command to it is not obligatory for him to be good and to forbid what is bad.
4: If he knows or has a strong suspicion that his speech is influential and otherwise, it is not obligatory on him.
5: That he knows or has a strong belief that this work will not cause loss to his property or his life.
Qazi Abdul Jabbar says in another place: “Know that the purpose of enjoining the good is to do good deeds and the purpose of forbidding the evil is the decay and destruction of the evil. When the goal is achieved with an easy thing, it is not right to turn from it to difficult things and this is what is known by reason and Sharia; But from an intellectual point of view, when one of us can achieve his goal with an easy task, it is not right to turn from it to a difficult task, and from a religious point of view, Allah Almighty has said in the Holy Qur’an:«وإن طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا فأصلحوا بينهما فإن بغت إحداهما على الأخرى فقاتلوا التي تبغي حتى تفيء إلى أمر الله» (And if two groups of believers fight, make peace between those two groups, then if one of those two groups violates the other, fight with the group that is aggressor until it returns to Allah’s decree.) Here, Allah Almighty At first, he ordered to reform Zat al-Bin, then he ordered other things, until finally, he ordered war.
Mu’tazila believe that when enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil becomes obligatory, then in any way a person could do it, it does not matter if it is with a sword or with something else.
All the Mu’tazila except “Asam” agree that it is obligatory to enjoin the good and forbid the evil with the possibility and power: with the tongue, hand and sword, in any way they are capable of doing it.
