LIMITS OF FREEDOM
Intellectual freedom is undoubtedly a great blessing for any human being. However, everything in this world has its limits, and the same applies to freedom. Freedom, within its limits, is a complete blessing. But beyond its limits, it only leads to disorder.
The limit of intellectual freedom is that it should function within the scope of known and proven facts. One should not form opinions based on assumptions or guesses, nor build ideological frameworks on such baseless grounds. In the Quran, believers are instructed, thus:
“Do not follow what you do not know; for the ear and the eye and the heart shall all be called to account.” (17:36)
This means that a person should avoid making irresponsible statements. One should speak only after fully using their faculties of hearing, sight, and understanding to investigate the matter. If someone fails to do this, they will be guilty of expressing opinions without making use of the necessary abilities given by God.
If someone wishes to discuss a person or an issue, they must conduct a proper investigation. Before sharing an opinion, they should examine the matter thoroughly and speak only when they have a solid basis for their words. Otherwise, it is their duty to remain silent.
Speaking is permissible only for someone who has prepared themselves before speaking. They should make themselves deserving of speaking. Giving opinions based on hearsay is so objectionable that it has been described as falsehood in a hadith. Similarly, discussing matters related to intention is a grave error, because knowledge of intentions belongs to God. Just as freedom of expression is a right, it is also a responsibility—and that responsibility is to never express an opinion without full awareness and understanding.
Qatadah says that the Prophet of Islam, along with Abu Bakr and Umar, used to shorten the prayer and offer two units while in Makkah and Mina. Uthman also followed this practice during the early years of his caliphate. Later, however, Uthman stopped shortening the prayer and began offering four units. When Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud learned of this, he recited Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji‘un and declared it incorrect. Then he stood up and offered four units of prayer. Someone said to him, ‘You said Inna lillahi... about the four-unit prayer, and then you also offered four units following the caliph.’ He replied, ‘Opposing the group is even worse (al-khilaf sharr).’” (Al-Athar by Abu Yusuf, Report No. 147)
This example of Abdullah ibn Masud illustrates an important point. That is, in matters of disagreement, it is essential to observe a distinction. The distinction is that when speaking about a matter of difference, one should refer to the core principle. But when it comes to action, practical considerations must be taken into account.
Freedom is a right of every individual. But with every right come certain responsibilities. One of the responsibilities tied to the right of freedom is that, before exercising this right, a person should seriously consider what the result of their speech will be—whether it will lead to something constructive or to something destructive.
Another responsibility is to follow collective decisions within a social system. A person who does not hold authority over collective matters may express their disagreement verbally, but in practice, they should act in accordance with the group. If they fail to do so, social unity will break down. And the breakdown of social unity is the greatest of all evils.
A hadith says: So stay with the majority (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 3950; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 18450). This hadith carries the same message: that in times of discord, when you do not have control over the situation, you may declare the truth in a wise and thoughtful manner. But in action, you must remain with the majority of the community, because in such situations, practical disunity can cause even greater harm.
