In this article, I addressed the following concerns:

1. The Importance of Guarding the Heart and the Tongue
2. The Importance of Concealing the Sins of Those Who Do Not Publicize Their Actions and Harm Only Themselves
3. The Importance of Verification and Its Levels
4. When Is Backbiting (ghībah) and Public Exposure (tashhīr) Permissible, and Who Is Responsible for It?
5. Distribution of Responsibility among the parties involved in the scandal
6. What Are the Means of Preventing These Crises and Minimizing Their Impact When They Occur?
7. How can you ensure your own safety and guard your heart and assumptions about people in general, especially the righteous servants of Allah?

The Principle of Verification and Its Levels

A foundational principle of Islamic law is embodied in the maxim: “The default assumption is innocence.” This underscores the great hallmark of Islam: that individuals are born free of burdens or liabilities, whether criminal or moral, and no obligation or guilt is established without clear evidence.

Allah says: “O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate…” (Qur’an 49:6)

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ further warned against hastiness in relaying information: “It is sufficient for a man to be considered a liar that he conveys everything he hears.” (Muslim)

Those who propagate rumors without verification, especially on social media, fall into this category. Many are quick to share allegations about strangers or adversaries while denying irrefutable evidence against those they favor.

Balancing Verification and Precaution

The necessity of thorough verification does not negate the practical need for caution. It prompts critical questions: Must avoidance or warnings against corrupt individuals wait until a Shariʿah court establishes guilt? Can harm prevention be prioritized before definitive proof? How can the principle “harm should not be removed by equal harm” align with the imperative to prevent wrongdoing? Addressing these challenges demands a delicate balance between justice, good assumption, vigilance, and the distinction between private and public rights.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rA) said: “Punishments are not to be implemented except with clear evidence. However, precaution in matters such as testimony or trustworthiness does not require direct observation; widespread knowledge (istifāḍah) or less may suffice, even inferred through one’s associates, as Ibn Masʿūd said: ‘Consider people by their companions.’”

Verification for Warnings

The verification required for issuing warnings is distinct from the evidentiary standards necessary for legal punishments, particularly ḥudūd. Key considerations include: whether standards of evidence in judicial matters are universally agreed upon, whether verification varies based on context and consequence, and what level of verification is needed for warnings—be it to family, neighbors, or the public—or for measures such as suspensions or dismissals within Islamic institutions.

The Role of Evidence and Circumstantial Indicators (Qarāʾin) in Islamic Law

Islam places a high emphasis on evidence as a cornerstone of justice. The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Were people to be granted their claims, some would unjustly claim others’ wealth and lives; rather, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.”

Evidence in Islamic jurisprudence is broadly defined as anything that allows for the correct establishment of a factual claim through valid reasoning, whether with certainty (qaṭʿī) or likelihood (ẓannī). While primary references include textual proofs or practices validated by the Companions, evidence is not limited to these sources alone.

Qarāʾin are defined as apparent signs or indicators connected to hidden matters, pointing to a conclusion without being explicit or definitive. They can be situational, conceptual, or verbal.

Juristic Perspectives on Qarāʾin

Scholars differ in theory on the admissibility of qarāʾin in judicial proceedings. Some restrict evidence to explicit textual sources and judgments of the Comapnions, while others expand it to include anything that reveals truth and ensures justice. These differences are particularly notable regarding qarāʾin, especially in cases involving ḥudūd.

However, Shaykh Maḥmūd Shaltūt remarked: “Anyone who examines the works of the leading jurists will find that they unanimously uphold the principle of relying on circumstantial evidence in judgment. The Mālikīs are the most extensive in applying it, followed by the Ḥanbalīs, then Shāfiʿīs, and finally Ḥanafīs.”

Evidence from the Qurʾān and Sunnah Supporting Qarāʾin

1. Allah states: “And if his shirt is torn from the back, then she has lied, and he is of the truthful.” Al-Shinqīṭī explained that this verse highlights the necessity of ruling based on qarīnah.
2. Prophet Sulaymān deduced the true mother of a child by observing her compassion.
3. The Prophet ﷺ instructed claimants of lost items to provide specific identifying details as evidence of ownership.
4. The Prophet ﷺ and his Companions used physiognomy qiyāfah to establish lineage.

Dismissing qarāʾin undermines the ability to leverage advancements in forensic methods, criminal investigation, and justice. Qarāʾin, when strong or corroborated, can be acted upon, though caution must be exercised in establishing ḥudūd, which are averted by any doubt.

Qarāʾin in Discretionary Punishments (Taʿzīr)

Even when doubt prevents implementing a ḥadd punishment due to the lack of definitive Sharia proofs, taʿzīr may still apply. Some jurists even argue that when taʿzīr is waived, financial liability (ḍamān) may be increased. Furthermore, a person acquitted in court may still warrant caution if strong suspicion persists. For instance, the Prophet ﷺ ruled in favor of Sawdah’s veiling from her judicially declared “brother” based on resemblance to ʿUtbah, signaling potential illegitimacy despite the ruling.

Warning Before Complete Judicial Evidence

The hadith cited demonstrates how the Prophet ﷺ took precautions regarding his family, despite judicial evidence confirming a familial relationship. This raises an important question: Is it permissible to warn others without judicial evidence? The correct view allows warnings when there is no definitive accusation (qaṭʿ) or qadhf, provided the accusation is strong, harm is feared, and the sin is not confined to the individual alone.

It is critical to avoid two extremes: hastily jumping to conclusions and dismissing accusations with far-fetched possibilities. Both approaches are flawed. Acting on predominant assumption (ghalabat al-ẓann) is a well-established principle. However, warnings should rely on predominant assumption approximating certainty, especially when conflicting with default presumptions like the presumption of innocence and sanctity of honor.

Imams al-Māwardī and Abū Yaʿlā distinguish between siyāsah and aḥkām:
• Rulers (siyāsah) may publicize crimes as a deterrent during investigations.
• Judges (aḥkām) focus on adjudication and may only act after confirming the crime.

Do You Trust the FBI?

Rational individuals should neither outright dismiss accusations nor deny rulings without objective scrutiny. While intelligence agencies have historically fabricated charges against adversaries, they typically lack the time or incentive to target ordinary individuals who pose no threat to “national security.”

Allah commands: “O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate.” (Qurʾān 49:6)

Ibn al-Qayyim elaborates: “Allah did not command outright rejection of a sinner’s report. Instead, He mandated investigation. If credible external evidence supports the report, it is acted upon, regardless of the reporter’s identity.”

Guidelines for Public Warnings

Warnings must not escalate to qadhf unless supported by Islamic legal evidence (bayyinah sharʿiyyah). For example, three Companions faced the ḥadd punishment for qadhf when the fourth witness withheld testimony. No one should assert the occurrence of crimes like zinā without fulfilling evidentiary conditions.

In practice, it suffices for institutions, such as mosque administrations, to issue cautious responses: “An accusation has been made by such and such authority or individuals. While we lack investigative capacity, the strength of evidence compels us to suspend the individual in question.”

Individual Muslims who lack the means to establish a predominant assumption should refrain from spreading reports until they are confident in the strength of the accusation and the necessity of warning others. The responsibility primarily lies with trusted authorities to address such matters. Individuals may, however, share well-crafted statements issued by credible authorities or scholars known for their wisdom and sincerity.

When Are Backbiting (Ghībah) and Public Exposure (Tashhīr) Permissible?

Public exposure is permissible under certain conditions, such as protecting the community. Fāṭimah bint Qays narrated how the Prophet ﷺ warned her against two suitors, advising her to marry another. A weak hadith states: “Mention the evildoer by their wrongdoing so that people may be warned.” Its meaning is widely agreed upon, subject to detailed conditions.

Publicizing Crimes for Deterrence

Publicizing the misdeeds of evildoers serves as both a deterrent and a warning to others. This principle underpins public implementation of ḥudūd punishments.

A foundational maxim of Islamic law states: “Individual harm is tolerated to prevent general harm.”

Backbiting (ghībah), though generally prohibited, is permissible—and sometimes obligatory—when it serves a valid Sharīʿah purpose. Recognized exceptions include seeking redress, identifying someone, warning others, addressing overt sinfulness, seeking a fatwa, or help in removing wrongdoing.

Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī emphasizes that exposing individuals posing harm or promoting innovation is often mandatory. Imam al-Nawawī highlights that concealment is recommended for those of good character but discouraged for habitual wrongdoers, as exposing them can deter further harm and prevent emulation of their misconduct.”

Public Exposure (Tashhīr): A Form of Punishment

Public exposure, or tashhīr, serves dual purposes: deterring offenders and warning the public. It is a form of punishment under the jurisdiction of legitimate authorities.

In Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, the method of publicizing a false witness’s crime is described: “Abū Ḥanīfah stated that such individuals are paraded publicly but not struck.”

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah advocated stringent measures for severe offenders, stating: “The pimp who corrupts women and men warrants severe punishment, with their crime publicized extensively among both genders. Parading them publicly while announcing, ‘This is the punishment for such acts,’ serves as a strong deterrent against one of the gravest offenses.”

Similarly, habitual drunkards and dishonest tradespeople were publicly exposed to prevent harm and protect the public from deception.

Responsibility for Public Disclosure in non-Muslim Lands

In Muslim-majority lands, tashhīr is handled by Islamic authorities, but in non-Muslim societies, the responsibility transitions to the Muslim community (jamāʿat al-muslimīn). Imams like Ibn ʿĀbidīn, al-Kharshī, al-Juwaynī, and Abū Yaʿlā have emphasized the necessity of communal action in the absence of formal Islamic governance, allowing the community to appoint leaders or take collective steps to safeguard its members and address harm effectively.

Toward a Structured Approach

In ideal circumstances, communities should delegate authority (wilāyah) to trustworthy scholars, fatwa committees, and arbitration councils. Such bodies, operating within local legal frameworks, could mitigate confusion and ensure justice in cases of misconduct.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah explains: “The scope of general and specific appointments and their responsibilities are shaped by language, context, and customary practices. There are no strict limits in Sharīʿah for these responsibilities.”

In the absence of formal structures, informed community members must act responsibly to caution others without affirming unproven accusations. Care must also be taken to avoid spiritual maladies—such as arrogance, envy, or malice—that often emerge in such crises. Sharing a well-crafted statement from credible authorities or wise sincere scholars may suffice in many cases.

Distribution of Responsibility

The concept of responsibility in Islam begins with the acknowledgment that every human errs, as in the hadith: “All the children of Adam are habitual wrongdoers, and the best among the wrongdoers are those who repent.”

This underscores the need for humility, vigilance, and self-criticism. In times of ethical crises, blame is often misallocated for inferior motives, targeting societal structures, institutions, or groups we dislike. Instead, the focus should be on a balanced and just assessment of responsibilities among the Muslim community, its institutions, and individuals.

1. Responsibility of the Muslim Community

From a creedal perspective, Islam’s teachings inherently safeguard society from moral corruption, as evidenced by lower prevalence rates of alcoholism and something like HIV in Muslim majority countries. Critiques, such as excessive male dominance or undue reverence for religious figures, often arise from misapplications of Islamic principles rather than the religion itself. The community’s responsibility lies in correcting these misunderstandings, promoting accurate knowledge of the Sharia, and empowering scholars to uphold Islamic objectives in a dynamic world.

2. Institutional Responsibilities

Islamic institutions play a critical role in fostering ethical and spiritual refinement by educating the public on ethics, critical thinking, and accountability, while avoiding undue glorification of religious figures and emphasizing their fallibility. They must implement rigorous hiring processes, protect vulnerable individuals, particularly children, and address misconduct with sincerity and firmness.

While charisma and oratory skills are very desirable and can enhance daʿwah efforts, institutions must balance this with ethical oversight, acknowledging that even with precautions, deception can still occur, as reflected in the saying: “Whoever deceives us with Allah, we are deceived by him.”

3. Individual Responsibilities

Children:

Children are absolved of criminal responsibility before puberty and blame, as established by consensus before discernment. However, they may be disciplined to correct behavior, as seen in the Prophet’s ﷺ directive: “Command your children to pray when they are seven years old, and discipline them for it when they are ten.”

Adults:

Accountability in Islam, after the reception of Divine directives, hinges on three conditions: puberty, intellect, and volition. While all adults are accountable, the level of responsibility varies. For example:

• Women: They are equally responsible for their actions when they act with knowledge and choice. Islam honors women but recognizes gender differences, offering protections such as guardianship while maintaining equality in spiritual obligations.

• Mentally Ill: Accountability for mentally ill individuals depends on their mental capacity. Severe impairments that entirely obstruct understanding and free will absolve them of responsibility, while lesser impairments may reduce but not eliminate accountability if their ability to comprehend and direct their will remains intact.

Warnings about individuals focus on their potential harm rather than complete legal accountability. Justice considers their varying capacities while leaving ultimate judgment to Allah.

4. Power Dynamics in Violations

In cases of moral transgressions involving unequal parties—such as teachers and students or spiritual leaders and their followers—the elder or more knowledgeable party bears greater accountability. Spiritual authority exploited to violate sanctities risks severe consequences, including leading victims to blasphemy and apostasy. Allah says: “Indeed, Allah does not love the treacherous.” (Qurʾān 8:58)

Islam, however, does not absolve the weaker party of responsibility, as Qurʾānic dialogues highlight shared culpability between oppressors and their followers. For example: “We are all [tormented] in it. Indeed, Allah has judged between His servants.” (Qurʾān 40:48)

Blind obedience in wrongdoing is explicitly condemned. The Prophet ﷺ warned against following unjust orders, as seen in the hadith where a military leader, out of anger, commanded his soldiers to enter a fire. They refused, and the Prophet ﷺ affirmed: “Obedience is only in what is right.”

Thus, even religious authority does not absolve one of accountability for harmful actions. Each individual bears personal responsibility, with no excuse for complicity in wrongdoing unless under coercion. As a principle: “An action is attributed to the doer, not the one who commands it, unless coercion is involved.”

Related:

What Do I Do When I Find Out My Favorite Preacher Is Corrupt?