With one breath you demand Husn Al-Dhan in respect to what your brother does in private; with the other you cast aspersions on the intentions of all others, attributing to them all manner of evil.
With one breath you tell us that Husn Al-Dhan means not just to think well of your brothers, but to cover for their shortcomings, while in another you expose the alleged wrongdoing of others, thinking ill of them without a moment’s pause.
Is this how justice operates? Do we pick a side, and then choose all the evidence which proves one party innocent and the other guilty? Is it for us to decide that our friend is definitely telling the truth and our enemies are definitely lying?
What message does this send to your community? That even if your brother falls far short of the morality you proclaim, you will stand with him come what may, and as for those that complain: you will stand against them absolutely?
Why Husn Al-Dhan for one, but not the other? Why not the benefit of the doubt for both parties, until the facts have been established? Why not withhold judgement until what is opaque has been made clear? Why choose a truth you wish to believe in, and not just advocate for the truth?
Last modified: 21 August 2023
