The first condition of 'enjoining good and forbidding wrong' according to the generality of religious legal texts is that it should not lead to any harm

Ahmad Zeydabadi

In recent weeks, "the arrest or sentencing of the assailant of an enforcer of good" has become a repetitive news item in a certain region of the country. These reports indicate that the continuation of "enjoining good and forbidding wrong" in its usual manner is met with resistance from certain individuals in society, leading to physical confrontations.

The consequences of physical confrontations for both parties are, of course, harmful and costly, and their recurrence significantly increases the material costs and psychological damage to the community.

According to the generality of religious legal texts, the first condition of "enjoining good and forbidding wrong" is that it should not lead to any harm, and even the slightest likelihood of harm makes its practice impermissible.

What greater harm can there be than the possibility of physical confrontation, which not only results in superficial or serious injuries for one party but also leads to exile, flogging, and fines for the other, disturbing families and making society insecure and fearful?

People these days are on edge due to numerous economic and familial problems, feeling pressured and burdened from all sides.

Consider a citizen whose landlord has raised the rent of his rented home beyond his entire monthly income, or who is struggling to buy medication for his seriously ill father, or who is frustrated by his child's depression. This citizen, seeking a moment's relief from these exhausting worries, steps outside with his family, only to be confronted by someone who tells his wife or daughter to cover their hair!

Such reminders, even if delivered without insult, can be the last straw that breaks the camel's back or the final snowflake that brings down a branch. The man thinks to himself, in this unbearable situation, what concern do you have with my wife and child's hair, and why can't you let us have a moment of peace? You don't solve the problem; you only add to our burdens, and now the entirety of my troubles revolves around my wife and daughter's scarf?

Given such an objective and mental state, is it unnatural for one to suddenly lose their temper and unleash all their anger on that individual? Especially when they consider that person, directly or indirectly, as a cause of their misfortunes.