Labelling Without Evidence: A Theological and Moral Reckoning

Labelling Without Evidence: A Theological and Moral Reckoning

In the modern age of information overload and polarized discourse, the temptation to quickly label others—especially those with whom we disagree—has become all too common. These labels, often handed out without sufficient reflection or verification, are not benign. They carry implications that can impact reputations, distort truths, and most importantly, erode our own moral compass. In theological terms, such misjudgments may carry significant weight before God.

One of the most egregious of these moral missteps is the act of attributing serious ideological positions to individuals without clear, substantiated evidence. This is not merely an ethical lapse—it is a direct violation of the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability that lie at the heart of the Islamic tradition.

The Danger of Speaking Without Knowledge

The Qur’ān warns believers time and again about the gravity of speaking without knowledge. In Surah al-Isrāʾ, God states:

“And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart—about all those [one] will be questioned.” (Qur’ān 17:36)

This verse reminds us that not only our actions, but our thoughts, assumptions, and words will be held to account. Labelling someone with a charge as serious as theological deviance—or in some cases, heresy—without due process and personal verification is not a light matter. In fact, it is tantamount to bearing false witness, a sin of immense magnitude.

A Case in Point: Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

A striking example of this can be observed in the case of Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a prominent contemporary Islamic scholar. For decades, particularly in South Asian religious discourse, Mr. Ghamidi has been routinely labelled as a Munkir-e-Hadith—a "rejector of Hadith." This label suggests that he denies the authenticity or authority of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) sayings and traditions.

However, this claim collapses under even minimal scrutiny. As someone who has personally attended Mr. Ghamidi’s weekly study sessions in Dallas, I can testify to the depth of his engagement with Hadith literature. His sessions are thoughtfully divided into three parts: a detailed exegesis of the Qur’ān, a rigorous study of Hadith texts, and an open Q&A. His treatment of Hadith is not cursory or dismissive—it is methodical, nuanced, and firmly rooted in the broader Islamic intellectual tradition.

To differ with a scholar’s interpretations is legitimate. To accuse them of rejecting a foundational source of Islam, however, demands compelling evidence—not hearsay or inherited opinion.

Disagreement in the Islamic Tradition

Islam not only permits but encourages intellectual engagement and difference of opinion. The Qur’ān is replete with exhortations to reflect and reason:

“[This is] a Book We have revealed to you, full of blessings, so that they may ponder its verses and so that those of understanding may take heed.” (Qur’ān 38:29)

The very act of pondering (tadabbur) is praised, and genuine differences that emerge from such reflection are part of the richness of our intellectual heritage. Scholars throughout Islamic history have held divergent views on theology, law, and Hadith methodology—yet the tradition preserved mutual respect and scholarly integrity.

The danger lies not in disagreement, but in reducing intellectual dissent to personal vilification.

The Moral Weight of Our Words

This issue ultimately returns us to a basic principle: the moral weight of our words. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

“Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent.”
(Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī & Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

Before hastily labelling someone, especially in public discourse, we must ask ourselves: Do I possess direct evidence? Have I verified the claim? Am I being fair? God commands us in Surah al-Nisāʾ:

“O you who believe! Be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves…” (Qur’ān 4:135)

A Personal Resolution

As someone who has erred in this regard, I feel compelled to make a personal resolution: I must stop participating—actively or passively—in the labelling of others without conclusive evidence. This is not just a matter of social ethics; it is a matter of my accountability before God. If I am summoned on the Day of Judgment and asked for proof behind my words, what will I say?

Conclusion

To label someone without evidence is a moral and theological digression. In the age of viral opinions and snap judgments, we must return to the Islamic ethos of fairness, restraint, and personal accountability. Disagreement, when based on sound reasoning, is a mark of a healthy intellectual tradition. But when disagreement morphs into slander, it not only damages the individual but corrodes the very fabric of ethical discourse.

As Muslims and as thinkers, let us rise above hearsay, avoid the pitfalls of tribal polemics, and instead embody the Qur’ānic call to justice—even if it be against ourselves.

Aamir Yazdani