Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It would seem that many people have been lured by the nicely sounding but nonsensical phrase which is "don't judge". 

This view is contrary to Islam, which gives judging a great deal of importance and I'm not talking about the Islamic Court. What I'm talking about is that people are not supposed to be treated "equal" even if they are both believers, because their actions matter. 

You have to treat the sinner and transgressor differently from the Mu'min - and Islamic Law has a great deal on this, for example, prayer behind him is batil, his witnessing is illegitimate, and other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, E.L King said:

You have to treat the sinner and transgressor differently from the Mu'min - and Islamic Law has a great deal on this, for example, prayer behind him is batil, his witnessing is illegitimate, and other things.

Do you mean that believer and unbeliever are treated not equally in Islam ? 

Edited by Hameedeh
Quote was shortened in length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Do you mean that believer and unbeliever are treated not equally in Islam ? 

I think, I have not understood fully. If you mean that we should always be cautious against the transgressor and sinner, then it's true...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

The Islamic legal differences you mention is not relevant to the "don't judge" saying. The former is about minimising anything that might compromise the correctness of 'ibada and mu'amala and hukm based on appearances, while the latter is about concluding the status of a person before God merely on account of his or her action that appears to you, nearly always in contrast to yourself.

In the first the zahir is the standard and the zahir is evidence, and so is fine.

In the second the waqi' is the standard but the zahir is evidence, and there is room and motive to misjudge by a significant margin.

Nobody could judge Hurr till he died. Whoever judged, misjudged, and did him grave injustice. (That is waqi' and question of status.) But he had to be opposed while he remained opposed to the Imam. (That is zahir and question of how to interact with him correctly.)

و علیکم السلام

This is incorrect, because when you say "concluding the status of a person" is wrong that means one cannot call someone a fasiq when he is indeed a fasiq and it doesn't have to be in contrast to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If 'calling someone a fasiq' is a judgment of status then it is conjecture and could be false and so slander - no, that is not allowed.

'Calling someone a fasiq' as a judgment of their current behaviour would still be allowed.

These two appear contradictory. Their status is indicated by their current behaviour - not by how they're going to be in the future. If I see someone drinking in the middle of the road, I would be allowed to judge that person as fasiq. But then 10 mins later I saw him in the Mosque repenting, this means his status has changed and I can now treat him as a adil. 

This has nothing to do with confirming people to Hell or Heaven or the akhira, this thread was never created with that intention, this thread is about the fact that way we as believers are accepted to treat other people would be dependent on their behaviour - and their behaviour confirms their status in the hukm shar'i, not their status in the akhira.

Therefore, the phrase "don't judge" is nonsensical, because we are required to judge in these cases, almost daily. This is not "he is a bad guy, I'm better", this is about "I saw him committing a sin, I should not accept his testimony for sighting the moon or pray behind him".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as per El kings previous posts, he sees the world in Black and white. Which means, he does not like to think of the why or how, its is a rather simple way of living for him and this is a generality from the majority, as it also comes with less tension in life.

his mind

I see a drunk a guy,  - omg, evil human, fasiq, burn etc.

Guy in Mosque - omg, prays, follows islam, what a nice guy, adil.

Some minds

I see a drunk a guy,  - don't care, what a fool, idiot, unproductive, get away from me, analyzing the persons dress, expressions, demeanor, associating past experience or knowledge, person probably has a problem/s, hope he gets better.

Guy in Mosque - analyzing behavior, whatever, good, must be careful, its an act, genuine, could be good, behaves like the rest, wow, what a nice person and knowledgeable, trust. etc

Therefore, the phrase "don't judge" is nonsensical, because we are required to judge in these cases, almost daily. This is not "he is a bad guy, I'm better", this is about "I saw him committing a sin, I should not accept his testimony for sighting the moon or pray behind him".

incorrect. Many a sinner has spoken truths more then the truthful. It just means that if a person breaks a law, you can act more cautious with that person, but just because you have not observed breakage of law , it does not mean there is no act of caution.

Edited by monad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is no as simple as differentiating between an orange or an apple. It is all about the human mind in that current moment or what lead to that moment, What is the moment of committing a sin to committing a good deed. If committing a sin, we were condemned, then asking for forgiveness would not have existed.

Edited by monad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

@E.L King

Why should their status - which is their reality as seen by God - be indicated by their current behaviour as appears to you? Please tell me why this isn't an assumption you are making up.

*

When they say "don't judge" they mean don't judge in the way only God can judge. No culture in existence says don't judge in the sense of sympathising with murderers like victims, thieves like lawabiders, racists like honorable men and women.

و علیکم السلام

It is not an assumption because it is their reality which I can see with me eyes, what they do is what they are.

Tell me, is it haram to call someone a fasiq in your eyes? When am I allowed to say fulan is a fasiq, since I can "never assume his reality"? Why do labels like fasiq, adil, etc.. even exist in this case? 

When they say "don't judge" they mean tolerate their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) they say don't judge a sinner, so tolerate his behaviour and treat him equally like you. This was the way the sodomite movement used to use it when people would criticise their behaviour. Likewise, if I were to forbid a hijabless woman from evil, tell her she is wrong, and treat her differently, I would be told to "not judge".

2) So based on what you have stated, the term "fasiq" is not used to indicate one's status - but merely a description of how they are on the outside - because one does not know another person's hidden works and reality. Do you have proof from any aalim regarding this? Arabic or English would be fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

@E.L King

There is scholarly evidence that the term 'fasiq' should not be applied to a great-sinning mu'min absolutely (without qualification), and that his status as a 'mu'min' should qualify it, and that once a 'mu'min' always a 'mu'min' whose fisq is eventually forgiven (ultimately they will enter heaven and be rewarded thereafter indefinitely - that is their real status).

There are two judgments here, fasiq as a term describing "what" they do and mu'min as a term describing "who" they are.

Shaykh Mufid says in Awail:

وأقول: إن مرتكبي الكبائر من أهل المعرفة و الاقرار مؤمنون بإيمانهم بالله وبرسوله وبما جاء من عنده وفاسقون بما معهم من كبائر الآثام، ولا أطلق لهم اسم الفسق ولا اسم الإيمان بل أقيدهما جميعا في تسميتهم بكل واحد منهما، وامتنع من الوصف لهم بهما من الإطلاق وأطلق عليهم اسم الاسلام بغير تقييد وعلى كل حال، وهذا مذهب الإمامية إلا بني نوبخت فإنهم خالفوا فيه وأطلقوا للفساق اسم الإيمان.

And also in Awail:

وأقول: إن من عرف الله تعالى وقتا من دهره وآمن به حالا من زمانه فإنه لا يموت إلا على الإيمان به، ومن مات على الكفر بالله تعالى فإنه لم يؤمن به وقتا من الأوقات، ومعي بهذا القول أحاديث عن الصادقين (ع) وإليه ذهب كثير من فقهاء الإمامية ونقلة الأخبار.

 

*

Anyway, the claim is yours and the assumption is yours; I only questioned the assumption from my perspective. What's your 'aqli or aya or hadith evidence for your assumption? (This is kalam and I don't take scholarly views as hujja or even relevant.)

و علیکم السلام

It would seem there is a difference of opinion amongst scholarly circles, and even in your quote Al-Mufid admitted Banu Nawbakht had a different opinion.

As far as I know, many scholars today would not hesitate calling a publically sinning Mu'min who knows he is sinning a fasiq, while at the same time confirming this does not negate his iman and that he is bound to Jannah due to his iman.

And I'm not sure if this is related, but Sayyed Al-Khoei's bahth on adala seems to have touched on this I believe:

http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=64

But the point of this thread is related to one's status in dunya, you seem to be conflating this with one's status regarding his destination in the akhira - which isn't my concern. Rather, his status in dunya which would affect the way we deal with him.

As for Qur'anic proof, what about this ayah?

And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;- [24:4]

Is this not a judgement on their status?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's a strawman. It means don't pass sentence on the sinner on account of their sin, for your sentence may differ from God's sentence; rather excuse them and ask forgiveness for them and guide them and help them improve their lot.

As for how other people used this phrase, it is like how people abuse any terminology. The most famous origin of the phrase is in the gospels and has had the most history which remains prevalent today.

 

و علیکم السلام

I have never seen anyone use it in this way, and I was not targeting people who use this phrase as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

His status in dunya is a 'mu'min', though his apparent actions earn him the legal and moral attribute of 'fasiq' only since and until such behaviour is apparent.

و علیکم السلام

والصحيح أن حسن الظاهر والاسلام مع عدم ظهور الفسق ، معرّفان للعدالة لا أنهما العدالة نفسها ، لامكان أن يكون الفاسق ـ في أعلى مراتب الفسق باطناً ـ متحفظاً على جاهه ومقامه لدى الناس ، فهو مع أنه حَسَن الظاهر محكوم بالفسق في الواقع لارتكابه المعاصي ، ولا مساغ للحكم بعدالة مثله بوجه لقوله عزّ من قائل : (أولئك هم الفاسقون ) (1) مشيراً إلى مرتكبي المعاصي ولو في الباطن . وكذلك الحال في الاسلام وعدم ظهور الفسق ، فإن هذا العنوان بنفسه يدلنا على أن الفسق أمر واقعي قد يظهر وقد لا يظهر ، فمع أن المكلف فاسق في الواقع لارتكابه المعصية في الباطن كيف يمكن أن يكون عادلاً من جهة عدم ظهور الفسق منه . إذن هما طريقان ومعرفان للعدالة لا أنهما العدالة نفسها، ويأتي الكلام على معرّف العدالة وطريق استكشافها قريباً إن شاء الله .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×