1When something is genuinely wrong, try saying the whole sentence: this is wrong, it should not be like this, and it is. Then ask how it came to be, before asking what to do.
The word should keeps you in the courtroom, where the only available outcome is a verdict. Asking why moves you into how the thing actually happened, which is the only place anything can change. Nobody is asking you to approve of it. You can hold that it is wrong and still get curious about how it came about, and most people notice the heat drop a little once they are explaining rather than sentencing.
Islamic evidence
Make a just and even-handed reconciliation between the two of them (Quran 49:9). Even where wrongdoing is named plainly, the destination given is a settlement rather than a verdict.
“If two groups of the believers fight, you [believers] should try to reconcile them; if one of them is [clearly] oppressing the other, fight the oppressors until they submit to God’s command, then make a just and even-handed reconciliation between the two of…”
Qur'an 49:9
Psychological evidence
In a randomised writing experiment with 182 students who had been hurt by someone, those assigned to write about it in a concrete, experiential way became less unforgiving and less distressed, and it buffered the effect of stewing on the event. How they went back over it mattered, not merely whether they did. It was a single writing study with students, so hold it lightly.
Liao KY, Wei M, Russell DW, Abraham WT. (2012). Journal of clinical psychology · doi
Review detail
Why it works. Working out how something happened runs in a different gear from judging it, and that gear is cooler.