The Creeping Influence of Emotionalism, Whataboutism, and Populism in Discussing Da’wah Issues

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Allah, The Most High, said:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِكُمۡ أَوِ ٱلۡوَٲلِدَيۡنِ وَٱلۡأَقۡرَبِينَ‌ۚ إِن يَكُنۡ غَنِيًّا أَوۡ فَقِيرً۬ا فَٱللَّهُ أَوۡلَىٰ بِہِمَا‌ۖ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ ٱلۡهَوَىٰٓ أَن تَعۡدِلُواْ‌ۚ وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah; even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. [An-Nisaa. 135] Read article on this link: https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2026/04/13/1-justice-for-all/

Ask Allah for guidance to follow this Ayah, and to keep you away from emotionalism that clouds clarity and truth, as well as populism and whataboutism in Dawah. When demanding justice, we must not allow emotions to lead us to favour someone we love more than others, even though the other person deserves more support or defense.

We have suddenly begin to witness behaviours – among some those who heavily rely on social media for Dawah – resembling emotionalism, whataboutism and populism. This involves some people who claim to be committed to justice, but a closer look at their actions reveals a tendency to shift discussions, evade issues, or fearmongering instead of focusing on the clear proofs. For instance, instead of discussing – with unambiguous knowledge based proof – whether someone is guilty or if disciplinary action is justified, they divert the conversation with questions like, “What about this other person?” Indeed, this question does not automatically mean that a specific disciplinary action is unfair. Secondly, it is important that one questions or demands justice in manner that is free from false equivalence by suggesting or insinuating that two situations are identical without providing clear, unambiguous proof. This is absolutely a waste of time- neither can it distract people who have been around for many years nor dupe those among us who have dealt with personalities who were more manipulative than some people at present. This question cannot make any sensible person become oblivious of the fact that a questioner may mix speculation with suspicion, implying that another person should also face consequences, yet fail to present any facts or evidence to back that claim. This behaviour is becoming common in the rhetoric of some people who consider themselves advocates for justice, while true justice demands consistent standards and evidence, rather than just raising unresolved questions, appealing on behalf of personalities or name-dropping. Therefore, it is important to remind these time-wasters – on social media – that if person A has been proven to have done something wrong, the question of whether person B has also done something wrong is a different issue, and the two only become the same when clear, unambiguous proof is presented. Therefore, it is not befitting for our youth to engage with such individuals, whether in person or through social media platforms, where they spread thrive on emotionalism, whataboutism or populism in the name of Dawah, objectivity, and justice.

Indeed, fruitful and honest discussion should always return to the evidence, asking: Do you have proof that the other person committed the same wrongdoing? If so, let’s look at it. If not, we can only evaluate the case for which we have evidence. This approach ensures equal treatment while preventing unsupported claims from undermining evidence-based decisions. Thus, we do not need social media Dawah personalities – regardless of who they are – who speak about fairness but fail to meet the evidentiary standards necessary for true justice. Someone might genuinely think they are highlighting double standards, but without proof that the cases are similar, they are making an assumption instead of clearly demonstrating the truth. The approach should be: “What evidence do you have that the disciplinary action against A is justified, while B is not?” When the response is “nothing,” we explain that the conversation is no longer about justice, rather, it’s about refusing to assess the evidence on its own merits. To complicate things further, some may take this useless pursuit to extremes, saying more than their emotionalism and whataboutism permits, thus expressing ideas that are tantamount to Riba of the tongue. Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

“Verily, the worst act of usury is to attack the honour of a Muslim without a just cause”. (1)

Meaning: The greater in evil and the more strictly prohibited is to unleash your tongue against the honour of a Muslim by insulting him, acting haughtily towards him, and speaking ill of him through abusive language or slander. This becomes a stricter prohibition because honour is more valuable than wealth.

“Without a just cause”.

This shows there are instances in which it is allowed to refer to someone negatively by using language like “such and such is an oppressor or transgressor” or “such and such is an innovator (in religious affairs) and an open sinner” in order to warn others is allowed. (2)

This has been referred to as usury because the transgressor receives his honour and then goes above and beyond it as if he has added an increase that encroaches on the boundaries in regard to the honour of a Muslim, which is more valuable than his wealth. According to At-Teebee, may Allah have mercy upon him:

“From the standpoint of emphasis, honour is included in the categories of wealth. Usury is classified into two types: that which is conventional and is described as what is added to debts, and that which is not unconventional, such as verbally disparaging someone’s honour.”

Al-Qaadhee may Allah have mercy upon him, said,

”Violating a Muslim’s honour means dealing with him more than he deserves of what is to be said about him, or more than is permitted to be said about him, which is why it is compared to usury and regarded as one of its types. Then it is considered to be worse because it contains more harm and is more serious in corruption”. (3)
Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

“If there’s evil in anything, it is between the two Jaws, meaning the tongue. There is nothing more in need of prolonged imprisonment than the tongue”. (4)

Ibn Al-Akwaa came to Rabee Bin Khuthaym and said: “Refer me to one who is better than you; he (Rabee) said: The one whose speech is a reminder for himself; his silence is (so that he can) think and his destination (in the Afterlife is a reason) for reflection.  He (i.e. this type of person) is better than me. (5)

There are also those who behave like demagogues, trying to gain influence by appealing to emotions, grievances, and identity instead of using careful deliberation. They present themselves as speaking uncomfortable ‘truths’ and portray honest critics as enemies of the common people or opponents of tolerance. Instead of relying on clear, unambiguous knowledge-based proofs, they take positions that resonate with their audience, not because they are well-founded. They speak with authority beyond their competence while appearing confident, turning issues into moral causes to justify broader claims or actions. This behaviour resembles mission creep or overextension, starting with a defensible point but leading to conclusions that don’t logically follow.

Others operate under the modest claim: “I am just saying we should discuss this”, then they shift to a stronger or controversial stance without any credible proof cited, and finally retreating to the modest claim when challenged. Furthermore, they continue framing justified criticism as intolerance or censorship instead of addressing the substance of the criticism. They use their large audiences to legitimise or normalise individuals or ideas that might not otherwise get attention. All of this is clothed in populist rhetoric: starting from partially defensible premises, extending them beyond what the evidence supports, using emotional appeals and identity-based framing, portraying opposition as intolerance, and using their platform to amplify or legitimise controversial voices. The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

“The most hated of men in the sight  of Allah is the one who is most quarrelsome”.

Al-Allamah Zayd Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

A warning against argumentation, falling into evil behaviour and its severe (consequences), especially if the argumentation is based on falsehood. As for when it is based on truth, there is nothing wrong with that for the one who has a right to do so;  but he should be just in his argument so that he does not enter into oppression or error, and Allah knows best.

The hadith is a warning against lying during argumentation, falsehood and adorned speech until one changes falsehood into truth and truth into falsehood – not bothered about making an oath, lying or giving false witness. All this takes place from a person who is extremely quarrelsome, goes into excess in the matter and does not feel shy in the presence of Allah- neither fears punishment in this life nor in the next life. When it is the case that the extremely quarrelsome person is blameworthy, the person who has good conduct – if entitled to something – during an argument and other matters, will not utter except truth, and will not seek after anything except the truth- neither lies nor deceives the Shariah judge. This is from the characteristics of the people of Iman – those whom Allah praised in the Qur’an and the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, praised them in the pure Sunnah. (6)

Imam Al-Barbahaaree, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: Al-Hasan (al-Basree) said, “The wise man does not argue or seek to overcome with stratagem rather he propagates his wisdom. If it is accepted, he praises Allah and if it is rejected he praises Allah”. [Sharh As-Sunnah]

Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Quotes:

The wise man is the one who posses wisdom, and wisdom is to place something in its place. Similarly, the wise one means the one with understanding.

He does not debate (with) a fruitless debate that is devoid of benefit.

He propagates his knowledge and if accepted he praises Allah. This is what is sought after.  If it is not accepted, he is absolved of his responsibility and the proof is conveyed.

“He praises Allah” because he established and conveyed the proof, and fulfilled what is required of him, and the guiding of the hearts is in the hands of Allah. (7)

Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih, may Allah have mercy upon them, said:

O student of knowledge! It is obligated to you to abandon (blameworthy) debate and argumentation because debate and argumentation is a means to cutting off the path to what is correct, makes a person speak to give the upper hand to himself. Even if the truth is made clear to him, you will find him either rejecting it or misconstruing the truth -out of disliking it- to give himself the upper hand and compel his opponent to accept his statement.

Therefore, if you notice (blameworthy) debate and argumentation from your brother when the truth is very clear, but he does not follow it, flee from him like you would flee from a lion, and say, “I do not have anything other than the truth I have mentioned to you”. (8)

Avoid False Analogies And Lying During Disputes

Allah said:

إِن يَسْرِقْ فَقَدْ سَرَقَ أَخٌ لَّهُۥ مِن قَبْلُ

If he steals, there was a brother of his [Yusuf (Joseph)] who did steal before (him)]. [Yusuf. 77]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

Allah informs us about Yusuf’s brothers [Footnote I] that when they found the bowl in their brother’s (Bin Yamin) bag, they said: “If he steals, there was a brother of his (Yusuf) who did steal before (him)”. Thus, they did not draw a (sound) comparison between the basis of the matter and its shared characteristics based on a (sound) reason nor its evidence; but rather they attached one to the other without comprehensive evidence other than the mere similarity between Bin Yamin and Yusuf (as blood brothers); so, they said, “This is analogy regarding the similarity between him and his brother in many ways, and that this one (Bin Yamin) has committed theft just as that one (Yusuf) committed theft (in the past)”. This (analogy of theirs) is a void comparison between similarities and an analogy based on a mere comparison between (two) images that is devoid of a shared cause (or reason) that would necessitate that the two are the same. It is a corrupt analogy. The similarity due to being blood brothers is not a shared cause (or reason) for being similar with regards to committing theft. There is no evidence of similarity in this, so the comparison is one devoid of a (sound or real) shared reason (or cause) and its evidence. [9]

Avoid Burdensome Speech In Seeking to Win An Argument

The Messenger, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, said: “Indeed, Allah hates the eloquent one among men who moves his tongue round (within his teeth), as cattle do”.

Al-Allamah Abdul Muhsin Al-Abbad [may Allah preserve him] said:

“The person intended in this Hadith is the one who speaks eloquently while using obscure or ambiguous language, immersing himself in speech and burdens himself. He burdens himself in speech and thus utters something blameworthy. However, if this [eloquence] is not done by way of burdening oneself in speech, such as the one whom Allah has granted eloquence and he utilises it in his speech to clarify the truth, then this is not blameworthy. Allah hates the person who speaks eloquently and utters that which is blameworthy due to deliberately utilising obscure, ambiguous, and burdensome speech. This person is likened to a cow that moves its tongue round [among its teeth] when eating. It is said that a cow is not like other animals because other animals use their teeth but a cow uses its tongue. This hadith forbids the likes of this action [i.e. eloquent burdensome speech] and the one who does so is hated by Allah. [10]

[1] Abu Daawud 4876

[2] An Excerpt from ‘Awnul Mabood Sharh Sunan Abee Daawud’ 13/152

[3] An Excerpt from ‘Mirqaatul Mafaateeh Sharh Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh’ 8/3157

[4] Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq 19528

[5] Siyah A’laam An-Nubulaa: 4/261

[6] An Excerpt from at-Taleeqaat Al-Maleehah Alaa Silsilah Al – Ahadith As-Saheehah. 1/26

[7] An Excerpt from It’haf Al-Qari Bitta’liqaat Alaa Sharh As- Sunnah Lil Imam Barbahaaree. 2/265-266

[8] An Excerpt from Sharh Hilyah Talib Al-Ilm page 246

[9] I’laam Al-Muwaqqi’een 1/198. paraphrased:

قوله تعالى : إِن يَسْرِقُ فَقَدْ سَرَفَ أَخٌ لَهُ مِن قَبْلُ
[يوسف: ٧٧]

أخبر عن إخوة يوسف أنهم قالوا لما وجدوا الصواع في رحل أخيهم : إن يَسْرِقُ فَقَدْ سَرَفَ أَخٌ لَهُ مِن قَبْلُ . فلم يجمعوا بين الأصل والفرع بعلة ولا دليلها، وإنما ألحقوا أحدهما بالآخر من غير دليل جامع سوى مجرد الشبه الجامع بينه وبين يوسف، فقالوا : هذا مقيس على أخيه، بينهما شبه من وجوه عديدة، وذاك قد سرق فكذلك هذا ، وهذا هو الجمع بالشبه الفارغ، والقياس بالصورة المجردة عن العلة المقتضية للتساوي، وهو قياس فاسد والتساوي في قرابة الأخوة ليس
بعلة للتساوي في السرقة، ولو كانت حقاً، ولا دليل على التساوي فيها، فيكون الجمع لنوع شبه خال عن العلة ودليلها.
إعلام الموقعين (۱۹۸/۱)

[10] Explanation of Sunan Abu Dawud. Audio number 569