On Enjoining What Is Right and Forbidding What Is Wrong

From al-Rawḍah al-Nadiyyah fī Ḥaqīqat al-Zaydiyyah (The Dewy Garden on the True Nature of Zaydism) by Ibrāhīm al-Darsī, vol. 1, p. 80

Enjoining what is right (al-amr bi’l-maʿrūf) and forbidding what is wrong (al-nahy ʿan al-munkar) is one of the fundamental principles of Zaydism. Among the major Islamic schools, the Zaydīs distinguish themselves by giving this principle practical as well as doctrinal expression. As with the other principles previously discussed, we shall now explain the Zaydī position on this matter.

First

The Zaydīs hold that enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is obligatory whenever its conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are as follows:

1. The one giving the command or prohibition must know that what he commands is genuinely right and good (maʿrūf), and that what he forbids is genuinely wrong and reprehensible (munkar). Mere conjecture is not sufficient. If a person undertakes to command or forbid without knowledge, his action itself is blameworthy, since he cannot be certain that he is not commanding what is wrong or forbidding what is right.
2. He must know or reasonably believe that his command or prohibition will have some effect. If he neither knows nor believes that it will be effective, then there is unquestionably no obligation. It has been said, however, that it may still be commendable because it constitutes an invitation to goodness, while others have argued that it is not commendable because it would be futile.
3. He must not know or reasonably believe that his command or prohibition will result in another wrong equal to or greater than the one he seeks to prevent. Whether he knows, believes, or merely suspects that this will happen, if he knows or reasonably believes that it will lead to such a consequence, then neither commanding nor forbidding is considered proper.
4. He must not know or reasonably believe that his command or prohibition will bring serious harm upon himself, such as death, prolonged imprisonment, the loss of a limb, or a ruinous loss of property. If he knows or reasonably believes that such harm will result, then the obligation is lifted.
5. He must not know or strongly suspect that his command or prohibition will cause another good to be neglected or another wrong to be committed. If he knows or strongly suspects that this will occur, then the obligation is lifted.

Likewise, he must know or reasonably believe that if he does not enjoin the good, it will be neglected, and that if he does not forbid the wrong, it will occur.

The Method of Enjoining What Is Right and Forbidding What Is Wrong

One should begin with gentle speech. If this achieves the intended result of securing compliance, nothing further is required. Otherwise, one should proceed to harsh speech and warnings. If that is still ineffective, then one may resort to the stick, and finally the sword.

The reasoning behind this progression is that the purpose of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is simply to ensure that good is done and evil is avoided. If this objective can be achieved through the easier means, there is no justification for proceeding to the more severe ones.

Second

The Zaydīs hold that it is obligatory to rise against unjust rulers. This is a principle for which the Zaydīs have long been known, both in the past and the present. Every claimant to the Imamate (qāʾim) has risen against oppression and corruption with the aim of reforming the Muslim community.