Every individual may have a distinct area of specialization in which their opinions and contributions can be regarded as credible and effective. As the Arabic maxim goes, **“Likulli fann-in rijāl”**—every discipline and field of knowledge has its own qualified experts.
Even when a scholar attains a high level of excellence in religious knowledge and practice, it is unrealistic to assume that they will be equally proficient in every subject or that their statements will be equally accurate, relevant, and effective across all fields.
This is because the pursuit of knowledge is inherently multidimensional and specialization-dependent. Every discipline has its own methodologies, terminology, practical context, and specific demands in terms of expertise.
The depth and subtlety that an individual develops through years of study, research, and practice in one particular field do not automatically translate into equivalent competence in another.
This is particularly true of dynamic and reality-dependent fields such as contemporary politics, economics, and systems of governance. Offering sound opinions on these subjects requires more than general knowledge; it demands close observation of ongoing developments, practical experience, and a solid understanding of relevant theories.
Therefore, expressing opinions on every subject should not necessarily be regarded as a sign of extensive knowledge. In many cases, it may instead reveal the limits of one’s competence.
The true mark of a knowledgeable person lies in recognizing the boundaries of one’s expertise and respecting the opinions of qualified specialists whenever necessary.
In this context, scholars who are not regularly engaged in the study, analysis, and practical examination of politics, whose political experience is limited, and who have not developed a clear and in-depth understanding of contemporary political contexts, power structures, and strategic realities may, in many cases, find their direct political statements or active political involvement out of step with actual circumstances.
Such statements or interventions may sometimes be driven more by emotion than by rigorous analysis, producing confusion or unintended consequences rather than the desired outcomes.
On the other hand, society may benefit more from allowing such scholars to concentrate on the areas in which their genuine qualifications and abilities lie: preserving and disseminating knowledge through *dars wa tadris* (teaching and instruction), nurturing religious consciousness through *da‘wah*, and cultivating people of strong moral character and intellectual depth through ethical and intellectual leadership.
Keeping their contributions focused on these areas would appear to be a more productive, balanced, and dignified approach for both the scholars themselves and society at large.
A sense of responsibility and self-awareness demands that everyone contribute within the sphere of their actual qualifications and competence.
This not only enables individuals to preserve their own dignity but also benefits society by fostering leadership that is well-organized, realistic, and appropriate to the challenges at hand.