Section

Related to this subject is the saying: “So-and-so’s state is to be accepted without objection,” or “His state is not to be accepted without objection.” Disputes over this frequently arise concerning things done by certain shaykhs, spiritual mendicants, and Sufis that are said to contravene the Sharia.

Someone who considers these things reprehensible, and regards forbidding wrongdoing as part of religion, condemns those acts and censures both the man concerned and anyone who thinks well of him. He hates him, denounces him, and punishes him. By contrast, someone who sees the man’s righteousness and devotion—his asceticism, spiritual states, scrupulous piety, and knowledge—does not condemn those acts. Rather, he considers them permissible or good, or turns away from the matter.

Either of these two may go to extremes. The first may be carried by his condemnation to the point of declaring people unbelievers or grave sinners in matters open to scholarly judgment, following the apparent meaning of evidence from the Sharia. The second may be carried by his acceptance to the point of approving things contrary to the religion of Islam—things indisputably known to contradict what the Messenger brought—claiming to follow something resembling the account of Moses and al-Khidr.

The first tendency is common among those whose approach resembles that of Moses, and those among them who have strayed into Judaism. The second is common among those whose approach resembles that of Jesus, and those among them who have strayed into Christianity.