Culture of "I lit it up and it stood against me"
The majority, if not all, who have engaged in prohibited activities have justified their behavior by trading in drugs and their derivatives—alcohol and bribery—using the excuse: “I’m just lighting it up for him.” Those who encroached upon others’ property justified their actions by saying, “It was offered to me.” They are well aware that no one has been convinced by their justifications. Even those caught in the act seek to rationalize their behavior, but the real question is: who has actually been convinced?
There are those who invest a certain sum with a person close to them, fully aware that this person deals in prohibited substances, in exchange for periodic or irregular financial returns.
Similarly, there are public officials or individuals connected to them. When told that they have entered a zone of suspicion and doubt, you hear them say, “Everything offered to me is taken.” If asked to name even one instance of such taking, they remain silent. Yet, they intend to take what is unlawfully theirs. Their own desires have tempted them toward wrongdoing. Ultimately, this serves as punishment for what lies before them and what follows, and as a lesson for the God-conscious. Thus, they return bearing wrath upon wrath. Some are afflicted with ruin in their health and livelihoods, while others face imprisonment and social ostracism.
Law and entertainment
Legal
Restaurants
Those who invested in the trade of prohibited substances justified themselves by saying, “I’m just lighting it up for him; the sin is on him, not on me.” They refer to dealers of drugs and intoxicants. Likewise, those who consume these evils justify themselves by saying, “No one told me to take it.” As for those who work in selling them, they claim, “The law holds him accountable, not me,” and “If he gets caught, I don’t know him, and he doesn’t know me.”
The employee says, “I am merely a servant of orders; I execute the directives of my superiors.” It seems he is unaware that the law has not overlooked his actions, but rather criminalizes him as well.
Because executing a superior’s orders does not justify violating legislation. Even if execution is required, this applies only in narrow, exceptional circumstances where the employee refuses to carry out the order because it is criminal. If the execution was based on clear instructions from above, all of the above remains subject to the discretion of the Public Prosecution on behalf of society, followed by judicial assessments.
“The lawful is clear, and the unlawful is clear, and between them are ambiguous matters,” as our Prophet (peace be upon him) said in the widely agreed-upon hadith—a fact unknown to many. However, there is a caveat: “Whoever avoids suspicions, clears his religion and honor; whoever falls into suspicions falls into the unlawful.”
Laws are applications of these divine prophetic guidance: “Whoever is guided, it is for his own soul; whoever goes astray, it is only to its detriment.” There is a majority that has not gone astray, yet they invest in societal destruction. So why are you, too, among those arrested and accused of committing crimes when others are not?
If the excuse is “It was offered to me, and I didn’t take it,” then why does the legislator in every country in the world punish criminal participation, whether primary or secondary, as well as accessory participation, such as incitement, agreement, and assistance?
A Kuwaiti writer
