five: “monotheism,” by which they mean negating the divine attributes; “justice,” by which they mean denying divine decree; “the intermediate position”; “the enforcement of the threatened punishment”; and “enjoining right and forbidding wrong,” which includes fighting the rulers. I have discussed fighting the rulers elsewhere.
All of this falls under the “general principle” concerning benefits and harms, and good and evil deeds, when they conflict or compete: precedence must be given to whichever carries greater weight when benefits and harms compete and conflict.
Although enjoining and forbidding may secure a benefit and avert a harm, their countervailing consequences must also be considered. If the benefits thereby lost or the harms thereby incurred are greater, such action is not commanded. Indeed, it is forbidden if its harm outweighs its benefit. However, the relative extent of benefits and harms must be assessed according to the standards of the Sharia. Whenever a person can follow the scriptural texts, he must not depart from them. Otherwise, he must exercise his own judgment to identify similar and analogous cases. Scriptural texts rarely fail someone who is well versed in them and in how they establish rulings.
Accordingly, if a person or group combines right and wrong in such a way that they do not separate them, but either practise both together or abandon both together, one may not simply enjoin them to do right or forbid them to do wrong; the matter must be examined. If the good predominates, one should enjoin it, even if it necessarily entails a lesser wrong. Nor should one forbid