By Muftī Ismail Moosa
We are often afflicted with the situation where, instead of engaging in mature dialogue and constructive discussion, one scholar will prefer to rather write ‘an open letter’ or refute another scholar in the public domain.
Whilst some people sit back and enjoy the entertainment, others actively participate in this Fitnah by taking sides; thus adding fuel to the fire.
This is not something that is new, and, fortunately we can take guidance from the very early scholars. They too witnessed similar incidents; where important issues that ought to be behind closed doors were splashed in open for all and sundry to observe.
As we page through the books of history, it is clear that the leading Ṣaḥābah and Tābi’īn would adopt silence in such circumstances. The books on the narrators of Aḥādīth are filled with examples that illustrate how they would keep a distance from controversies, and ensured to rather focus on what is important.
“But what happens to our responsibility of protecting Dīn?”
“Don’t we have the obligation of Nahī ‘anil Munkar?”
“How can we conceal what Allāh has taught us?”
The devil will present all sorts of reasons for a person to also become ‘a clown in this public circus and entertain the spectators’.
Once issues are out in the open and each party is hurling abuses on the other and it is evident that the objective is simply to ‘gain more ammunition’ and to impress one’s followers, then there is no way that any of those parties with their teams will accept the other view.
Even if concrete evidence is brought forth or a leading scholar issues his verdict, the party in whose favour it is will use this to ‘score points’, and the other party will turn a blind eye to those proofs and look for ‘more straws to cling onto’.
After all, since they ‘devalued’ knowledge by bringing the differences before the masses, they now need to ‘save face’ and protect their own ‘value’.
Knowledge of Dīn is not a toy, and scholars are not clowns. If the scholars respect knowledge, the masses will respect the scholars, and the non-Muslims will then have awe for the Muslims. But if we disgrace ourselves, there is no way we can expect others to have any regard for ‘Ulamā, and it will be impossible for non-Muslims to give any consideration for Muslims. The popular example of wealth being confined to a safe is used commonly in another context. Let us understand that ‘just as we do not play with gold on the streets, we cannot play with the Dīn of Allāh in front of the public’.