by other medieval scholars. But in the modern era "the conception" of forbidding wrong has changed and become more systematic. Now opposing wrongdoing involves "the organised propagation of Islamic values," according to Cook, which requires missionary work and organisation. And several contemporary Muslim majority states or provinces have some kind of Islamic "religious police". Issues: By whom, to whom, about what While scripture is clear that a community is enjoined to command right and forbid wrong, it does not indicate whether this included all Muslims or only some. Three "basic questions arising "about the duty of forbidding wrong" are who has to do it, to whom, and about what?" Differences in scholarly debates over the duty of “commanding right and forbiding wrong” stemmed from the positions taken by jurists (Faqīh) on questions regarding who precisely was responsible for carrying out the duty, to whom it was to be directed, and what performance of the duty entailed. Often, these debates were framed according to what Michael Cook calls the “three modes” tradition, a tradition based on a prophetic hadith which identifies the “heart” (qalb), “tongue” (lisān), and “hand” (yad) as the three proper “modes” by which one should fulfill the obligation. Depending on a number of factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to their legal schools, scholars apportioned this labor in differing ways, some reserving the execution of the duty by “tongue” for the scholars and by “hand” for the political authorities such as the muḥtasib, or those invested with the authority to carry out the duty on their behalf, and others arguing that these modes extended to all qualified believers. Who should do the enforcing Scholars argue that free (non-slave) adult male Muslims are obliged to forbid wrong doing, and that non-Muslim are excluded from the duty. Michael Cook paraphrases al-Ghazali in asking, "After all, since the duty consists in coming to the aid of the faith, how could one of its enemies [an unbeliever] perform it?" and points out that if a nonbeliever upbraided a Muslim for wrongdoing he would "presuming to exercise an illegitimate authority over the Muslim", who should never be humiliated by an unbeliever. Children and the mentally ill are also excluded for lacking legal competency (mukallaf). However, scholars are generally "reluctant to restrict the range of those for whom forbidding wrong is a duty", and so usually include two other groups not possessing the rights of