Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah - Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la Ibn al-Farra - (293)

Al-Ahkam al-SultaniyyahAl-Qadi Abu Ya’la Ibn al-Farra

If he finds among those who present themselves as authorities in sacred law someone who is unqualified—whether a jurist or a preacher—and fears that people may be deceived by him through a misinterpretation or a distorted answer, he should denounce him for undertaking what he is not qualified to undertake and expose his true standing, lest people be misled by him. If the man’s status is unclear to him, he should not denounce him until he has investigated the matter.

Likewise, if one of those who claim affiliation with religious learning introduces an opinion by which he violates consensus and contradicts a revealed text, and the scholars of his time reject his view, the muḥtasib should denounce it and rebuke him for it. If he abandons the view and repents, that is the end of the matter; otherwise, the ruler has greater authority to correct and safeguard the religion.

If one of those who interpret the Book of Allah adopts an interpretation that departs from the apparent meaning of revelation in favor of an esoteric innovation, laboring to make its meanings obscure, or if one of the transmitters alone relates munkar reports that people find repugnant or through which interpretation is corrupted, the muḥtasib must denounce this. Such denunciation is only proper when he is able to distinguish the sound from the unsound and truth from falsehood. This can be established in one of two ways: either through his own strength in knowledge and independent legal reasoning in the field, or through the scholars of the time agreeing to denounce the matter and declare it an innovation. In that case, he relies on their statements in denouncing it and on their consensus in preventing it.

As for matters relating to prohibited acts, they consist in preventing people from places of suspicion and likely grounds for accusation, beginning with denunciation and not hastening to discipline before issuing a warning. If he sees a man and a woman standing in a public thoroughfare, with no signs of suspicious conduct apparent from them, he should not intervene by rebuking or denouncing them, for people cannot avoid such situations. If they are standing on an empty road, however, the seclusion of the place is suspicious, so he should denounce them, but should not hasten to discipline them.

وإن وجد فيمن يتصدى لعلم الشرع من ليس مِنْ أَهْلِهِ، مِنْ فَقِيهٍ أَوْ وَاعِظٍ، وَلَمْ يأمن اعترار النَّاسِ بِهِ فِي سُوءِ تَأْوِيلٍ، أَوْ تَحْرِيفِ جواب، أنكر عليه التصدي لما ليس مِنْ أَهْلِهِ، وَأَظْهَرَ أَمْرَهُ، لِئَلَّا يُغْتَرَّ بِهِ. وَمَنْ أُشْكِلَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُهُ لَمْ يَقْدَمْ عَلَيْهِ بالإنكار بعد الاختبار. وكذلك لَوْ ابْتَدَعَ بَعْضُ الْمُنْتَسِبِينَ إلَى الْعِلْمِ قَوْلًا خَرَقَ بِهِ الْإِجْمَاعَ وَخَالَفَ فِيهِ النَّصَّ وَرَدَّ قَوْلَهُ عُلَمَاءُ عَصْرِهِ أَنْكَرَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَزَجَرَهُ عَنْهُ، فَإِنْ أَقْلَعَ وَتَابَ وَإِلَّا فَالسُّلْطَانُ بِتَهْذِيبِ الدِّينِ أحق. وإذا انفرد بَعْضُ الْمُفَسِّرِينَ لِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى بِتَأْوِيلٍ عَدَلَ فِيهِ عَنْ ظَاهِرِ التَّنْزِيلِ إلَى بَاطِنِ بِدْعَةٍ، متكلف لَهُ غَمْضَ مَعَانِيهِ أَوْ تَفَرَّدَ بَعْضُ الرُّوَاةِ بِأَحَادِيثَ مَنَاكِيرَ تَنْفِرُ مِنْهَا النُّفُوسُ أَوْ يَفْسُدُ بِهَا التَّأْوِيلُ كَانَ عَلَى الْمُحْتَسِبِ إنْكَارُ ذَلِكَ. وَهَذَا إنَّمَا يَصِحُّ مِنْهُ إنْكَارُهُ إذَا تَمَيَّزَ عِنْدَهُ الصَّحِيحُ مِنْ الْفَاسِدِ وَالْحَقُّ مِنْ الْبَاطِلِ، وذلك من أحد وجهين: إما بأن يكون بقوته في العلم واجتهاده فيه، وَإِمَّا بِأَنْ يَتَّفِقَ عُلَمَاءُ الْوَقْتِ عَلَى إنْكَارِهِ وابتداعه فَيَعُولُ فِي الْإِنْكَارِ عَلَى أَقَاوِيلِهِمْ، وَفِي الْمَنْعِ منه على اتفاقهم. وَأَمَّا مَا تَعَلَّقَ بِالْمَحْظُورَاتِ فَهُوَ أَنْ يَمْنَعَ الناس من مواقف الريب ومظان التهمة ويقدم الإنكار ,ولا يعجل بالتأديب قبل الإنذار. وإذا رأى وقوف رجل وامرأة فِي طَرِيقٍ سَابِلٍ لَمْ تَظْهَرْ مِنْهُمَا أَمَارَاتُ الرِّيَبِ لَمْ يَعْتَرِضْ عَلَيْهِمَا بِزَجْرٍ وَلَا إنْكَارٍ، فَمَا يَجِدُ النَّاسُ بُدًّا مِنْ هَذَا. وَإِنْ كان الوقوف في طريق خالية فخلو المكان ريبة فينكرها، ولا يعجل في التأديب.