Umar ibn al-Khattāb would appoint someone guilty of misconduct because the benefit of his work outweighed that misconduct, then put an end to his misconduct through his strength and justice.

Refraining from forbidding such misdeeds in those circumstances is like refraining from stopping wrongdoing by physical force or arms when doing so would cause greater harm than the wrongdoing itself.

If, in a particular case, forbidding wrongdoing necessarily leads to the abandonment of a greater good, this is equivalent to its necessarily leading to the commission of a greater evil. An example is someone who embraces Islam on condition that he perform only two prayers, as is reported of some who embraced Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Another is a powerful king who embraces Islam while drinking wine or committing other prohibited acts, but who would renounce Islam if forbidden to do so. There is thus a difference between a scholar or ruler refraining from forbidding certain people to do something because forbidding it would cause greater harm, and his granting permission to do it. This varies according to the circumstances.

In other circumstances, the prohibition must be openly declared: to make clear that the act is forbidden, foster conviction in its prohibition and fear of committing it; in the hope that it will be abandoned; or to establish the proof against those concerned—as circumstances require. This is why the Prophet’s conduct, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, varied in his commands and prohibitions, his fighting and pardoning, his enforcement of prescribed punishments, his sternness and his mercy.