confusion and an intertwining of good and evil. Some people may look at the good deeds and favour that course, even though it involves grave wrongs. Others may look at the wrongs and favour the opposite course, even though it means abandoning great good deeds. As for those who take a middle course and consider both, the extent of the benefit and harm may not be clear to them, or to most of them. Or it may be clear to them, yet they find no one to help them do good and avoid evil, because personal desires have become intertwined with opinions. Hence it is related in the hadith:

“Allah loves penetrating discernment when doubts arise, and sound reason when desires assail.”

A scholar should therefore reflect carefully on these various cases. In some of them—as I explained earlier—what is obligatory may be to refrain from enjoining or forbidding certain things, not to declare the unlawful lawful or waive obligations. For example, enjoining an act of obedience may lead to a greater act of disobedience, so he refrains from enjoining it to prevent that disobedience. You might, for instance, report an offender to an unjust ruler, who then punishes him excessively, causing greater harm than his offense.

Likewise, forbidding certain wrongs may lead to the abandonment of a good deed whose benefit is greater than the benefit of giving up those wrongs. He therefore refrains from forbidding them, fearing that doing so would entail abandoning something commanded by Allah and His Messenger that he considers more important than merely abandoning that wrong. Thus, a scholar sometimes commands, sometimes forbids, sometimes permits, and sometimes refrains from