The Process of Enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong

After reading my previous post you may think I am inclined to feel that because birthdays originate from pagan practices they are wrong. I would like to inform you my opnion is completely the opposite.

Lets consider, for arguments sake, Birthdays are "wrong" based on personal ijtihad.

In my opinion the more you read and learn about fiqh the more complicated your perspective becomes lets see what the books of fiqh say about how we should deal with something we consider "wrong" based on "personal" ijtihad.

Please read the Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong section in "Reliance of the Traveller." This is the "Handbook" for "Shafi Fiqh". All Shafi scholars refer to this book
If you wish to obtain this book you can download the book here Note you need the Database search program to open it up which can be downloaded here

Note this is a very short section of "Reliance" and will take you about 5 minutes to read.

Please note, all "Fiqh" schools agree with the principles i.e. the "Usul" of this book. Only the Wahabi and Salafi scholars disagree with this book and its principles. Therefore I believe what I am about to mention applies to all schools of Fiqh (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) except the "Salafi" school


Here is a couple of quotes if you don't have the time:

The second integral of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong is that the thing censured is something blameworthy that exists at present and is apparent.
Blameworthy means that its occurrence is prohibited by Sacred Law, this being of wider scope than mere disobedience, for someone who sees a child or insane person drinking wine (A: which is not a sin in relation to them) is obliged to pour it out and forbid them.
That exists at present excludes someone who has drunk wine and is now finished, and so forth. It also excludes something which will take place later, as when there is evidence that a person intends to go drinking that night. There is no censure in such cases other than to appeal to the person's conscience.Apparent excludes someone who conceals his disobedience at home and locks his door. It is not permissible to spy on him. An exception is if something is manifest to another outside the house, such as the sound of pipes and lutes. Someone who hears them may enter and break the instruments. If one smells the odor of wine outside the house, the sounder opinion is that it is permissible to enter and condemn it.

Q-3.2: One May Not Condemn Another for Questions Involving Differences Among Schools of Jurisprudence
It is a necessary condition that the thing censured be something whose blameworthiness is not merely established by ijtihad (n: the independent legal reasoning of a particular Imam). Any question in which there is ijtihad may not be a cause for censure. A Hanafi, for example, may not condemn a Shafi'i for eating something slaughtered without the Basmala (dis: j-17.5(4) ), nor a Shafi'i condemn a Hanafi for drinking some nonintoxicating raisin drunk (N: nor a Muslim condemn a non-Muslim for drinking wine (dis: o-11.5(1) ) ). (A: But if two individuals follow the same school of Sacred Law and one commits an act that is unlawful or offensive in that school or in each of the two's respective schools, it is obligatory for the other person to condemn the act even when it involves the ijtihad of their Imam. And the Shafi'i must condemn the Hanafi for eating something slaughtered without the Basmala, as the Hanafi is doing something he believes to be wrong.

Another point to note is that one should not censure someone if you will be in a more reprehensible state then the person doing the reprehensible action:


If one wants to censure something but knows it will result in one's companions also being beaten with one, it is not permissible for one to do so, because one is incapable of removing one blameworthy thing without its leading to another.
(N: It is not lawful to censure anything reprehensible when doing so will lead to a thing or state that is more reprehensible.)

Lastly how we should behave towards preventing and warn people of "potential haram"
The second degree consists of explaining that an act is wrong, since an ignorant person will often do something he does not know is blameworthy, but will stop when he finds out. So one must explain it politely, saying, for example: "People are not born scholars; we were unfamiliar with many things in Sacred Law until scholars mentioned them to us. Perhaps there are not many in your hometown," and thus lead up to it diplomatically so the person understands without being offended. To avoid the evil of remaining silent when there is something wrong, only to commit the evil of offending a Muslim when able not to, it like washing away blood with urine

However in the past many people have fallen into this trap they have followed their desire to keep Islam pure of innovation and condemned practices which the sharia has not condemned because these people (who are not scholars) fear that the masses will become corrupted by their desires. The intention is pure but surely these people have forgotten that Islam does not need this sort of protection. Agreed "Islam came as a stranger and will return as a stranger" but people perceive and convey Islam as pessimists and they forget the very nature of Islam itself.

Agreed we can and must educate people about the origins of birthdays and insha-allah if people feel these things are wrong they will desist. But I say that suggesting birthdays are wrong and looking at birthday practices in negative and dismisive way I say is imposing ones personal "Ijtihad" on others. This is clearly self delusional and in my opinion egotist

I think I have demonstrated my opinion about birthdays. Birthdays are not "haram" no scholar of "fiqh" will ever state that they are "Haram" they may recomend to people that they should do better things with their time. There is evidence that the origins of birthdays are from "pagan" practices but one has to appreciate that using this evidence to advocate that birthdays are wrong is, in essence, imposing ones ijtihad for forbidding the wrong.

Despite this why do we find people and "puritan scholars" who promote that we should NOT celebrate birthdays?

There are two reason for this:

1) Their understanding of the definition of "wrong" and understanding of how we to deal with the "wrong" is not in agreement with the definition and criteria of "wrong" from the scholars of "Fiqh" and "Usul fiqh".

2) Their conservative and egotistical beliefs and pride of their own beliefs.

Both of these apply to the "Salafi" scholars and there is plenty of material on the "Ahl-e-sunnah vs Salafi" debate

Therefore I will only focus on what the definition of "wrong" in terms of "Usul Fiqh" but I will leave that for some other time insha-Allah.