that something may lead to blame and punishment, in the absence of an overriding consideration.

This includes performing obligatory acts and doubtful acts that appear to be obligatory, and avoiding prohibited acts and doubtful acts that appear to be prohibited. If disliked acts are included, I would say: “We fear that it may lead to deficiency and punishment.” Obligatory scrupulousness, however, means guarding against what leads to blame and punishment: performing what is obligatory and avoiding what is prohibited. The difference between the two concerns matters whose obligatory status is uncertain—whether they are obligatory or not—and matters whose prohibition is uncertain—whether they are prohibited or not. Refraining from what is unquestionably lawful is not scrupulousness, nor is performing what is unquestionably not required.

My qualification, “in the absence of an overriding consideration,” addresses cases in which a person can avoid something clearly prohibited or doubtful only by abandoning a good deed whose standing in Islamic law is greater than that of avoiding that evil. An example is someone who refuses to follow a sinful imam and consequently abandons Friday prayer, congregational prayer, Hajj and military campaigns. Likewise, a person may be able to perform a clear or possible obligation only by committing an evil more sinful than leaving that obligation unfulfilled. An example is someone who cannot fulfil the duties of enjoining right and forbidding wrong with respect to those in authority except through fighting that causes greater harm than the harm caused by the ruler’s injustice.

The basis for scrupulousness concerning doubtful matters is the saying of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“The lawful is clear, and the unlawful is clear. Between them are doubtful matters which many people do not know. Whoever avoids doubtful matters safeguards his honour and his religion, and whoever falls into doubtful matters falls into