Backbiting:
Secret Reports by Seniors
I am asked by my boss to give an assessment of my subordinate's attitude and
performance. Does this constitute backbiting?
When you are asked for an assessment of the attitude and work of other employees
under your supervision, you are simply being considered a witness of character
and attitude to work. As this report aims to assess the person and his
suitability for the work he is employed for, your reply is not backbiting, but a
testimony which you are called upon to make in all honesty. However, you should
confine yourself in such an answer to the facts you know trying hard not to
jeopardize the position of the person concerned. You should give him, or her, in
their absence your fullest support without hiding flaws that are of material
effect in reaching a judgement as fits the issue in question.
The support you may give is by pointing out their good points and what makes
them suitable for the jobs they are doing.
Backbiting:
Unjust or Justified Backbiting
In an article in the series 'Guidance from the Prophet", Mr. Salahi
quotes a Hadith in which a reference is made to a person "who unjustly
backbites another." This has raised the question in my mind over 'what may
constitute justified backbiting?" To carry the point further is
"just" backbiting permissible?
The Hadith to which you refer is the one, which quotes the Prophet, peace be
upon him, as saying: "Servants of God! God has removed restrictions (which
may lead to sin), except in the case of a person who indulges in unjustly
backbiting another. It is he who finds himself in a difficult position and leads
himself to destruction." The Hadith is much longer than that and it relates
the Prophet's answers to questions put to him by a large number of Bedouins who
were once in Madinah.
In order to understand what is backbiting, we quote the Hadith, which states:
"To backbite is to mention your brother (in his absence) in a way, which is
offensive to him." All backbiting in this sense is forbidden. There can be
no excuses, which allow a person to speak ill of another in his absence. This is
totally contrary to Islamic moral standards.
There are, however, two degrees of backbiting. The lesser one is when what is
said is true. That means a person speaks ill of another, but confines himself to
speaking the truth. That is forbidden, because a Muslim is required to protect
his brother in his absence. If he knows something about him, which does not
conform to Islamic manners and moral standards, he should not publicize that or
make fun of him in his absence.
The worst degree of backbiting is when what is said is untrue. That means that a
person speaks ill of another, knowing that what he is saying is a lie. That is
the case to which the Prophet, peace be upon him, was probably referring to in
the quoted Hadith. This is certainly a grave sin, which leads to
self-destruction.
As you see, there is no case of "just" backbiting, which may be
treated as halal. There are simply two degrees of a forbidden practice, which
means that the punishment for one is greater than that for the other.
There is an exception, however, in the case of a person being asked to testify
about another, whom he know well, either in a court of law or in ordinary
situation. The most common case of these is that when someone comes to you and
says that one of your close friends have made a proposal of marriage to his
daughter. He wants to make sure that he is the right person to have as a
son-in-law. You have, then, to give him an honest opinion, pointing out the good
and bad sides of his character. Someone may come to you and ask about one of
your friends, saying that they have discussed the possibility of entering
together into a business enterprise and he wants to know whether he is the right
person to do business with. He obviously wants to know about his honesty and his
expertise as a businessman. Again, you have to give him your honest opinion,
according to what you know of your friend. This means that you will speak in a
way, which your friend may not like. That is not considered backbiting. That is
giving a testimony, which must be truthful.
Boycott:
Amongst Muslims Precludes Admission into Heaven
Commentary by Adil Salahi - Arab News
It is well known that Muslims may not boycott one another. If they quarrel or
disagree, they should always keep their relationships alive and strong. It is
not right that they should allow the relationship, which exists between them by
God's blessing to deteriorate to the extent that they turn their backs on each
other. Such an attitude does not fit at all with the bond of brotherhood, which
Islam establishes between its followers. We have often said that to Muslims,
this bond of brotherhood is very real. Whatever happens between brothers, their
relationship would always be strong enough to overcome it. That applies in an
even greater measure to the bond of Islamic brotherhood. When a quarrel takes
place between two persons, it is only to be expected that they boycott one
another.
For this reason, the Prophet, peace be upon him, took every possible chance to
emphasize to his companions and to his followers in all generations that
estrangement between two Muslims must not be allowed to continue for over three
days, whatever the circumstances. Consider the following Hadith reported by
Hisham ibn Amir Al-Ansari who quotes the Prophet, peace be upon him, as
saying:
"It is not permissible for a Muslim to boycott another Muslim for over
three days. Both of them continue to be away from the path of the truth as long
as they continue with their boycott of each other. The first of them to move
towards reconciliation atones by that for his earlier attitude. Should they die
boycotting each other, neither of them will be admitted into heaven. If one of
them greets his brother but the latter refuses to accept his greeting, an angel
will answer the greeting while the other will have his answer from Satan."
(Related by Al-Bukhari)
This Hadith describes most vividly and clearly how Islam views quarrels and
boycotts between Muslims. The Prophet, peace be upon him, tells us that
regardless of which party is in the right and which is at fault, both are in the
wrong as long as they boycott each other. Should they continue with their
boycott for the rest of their lives, that it is sufficient grounds to deny them
admission into heaven? Of course, this presupposes that they have deliberately
continued with their boycott despite having a chance, or indeed repeated
chances, for bringing about reconciliation. It also suggests that people who
allow a quarrel to continue throughout their lives do not have the sort of
character which encourages them to do what they should in order to earn adequate
reward from God to qualify for admission into heaven. They cannot bring
themselves to attach the proper Islamic value to their bond of brotherhood. They
allow their ego to have the better of them.
Yes this may not apply to both of them. Either one may try to achieve
reconciliation and start with greeting the other. The very fact that he has
started is sufficient to ensure his forgiveness for his part of the boycott. If
his overture is not answered, God makes sure that an angel answers him. The
other has the worst of all answers, because his reply comes from the devil.
Some people may find it difficult to understand why the Prophet, peace be upon
him, makes the punishment for a lifelong boycott between two Muslims so severe
as to deny them admission into heaven. For one thing, a person who does this
demonstrates his total disregard for the principle of Islamic brotherhood. When
God describes the believers as "brothers", Muslims must demonstrate
that this bond of brotherhood is real. They have to rear and foster it all the
time. Nothing negates such brotherhood more than a total boycott between two
Muslims. It is inconceivable that two people who claim to be believers
demonstrate the total collapse of a quality, which God describes as essential to
believers. When they do that, they automatically disqualify themselves from
admission into heaven. Moreover, a prolonged boycott does not only kill Islamic
ties; it kills something else. The Prophet, peace be upon him, is quoted to have
said: "He who boycotts his brother for a year is like one who sheds his
brother's blood." (Related by Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Ahmad and Al-Hakim)
Commenting on this Hadith, scholars say that a person who boycotts his Muslim
brother for a year goes beyond all limits in insisting on his wrong attitude. He
actually kills him, using the sword of boycott. When we have such a description
by the Prophet, we can add nothing.
It is understandable; nevertheless, that things may happen between any two
persons which could strain their relations. This happens between brothers,
sisters and between husband and wife. Islam teaches us that when we get angry
with someone who is close to us, or with any Muslim brother or sister, we should
not carry our anger any further than is absolutely necessary. Moreover, we must
not forget that what exists between us cannot be washed over easily. Islamic
ties are much too important to be trampled over casually.
Like every household, there were some disagreements in the Prophet's own home.
It may be pertinent to ask here how the Prophet, peace be upon him, or his wives
conducted themselves when such a disagreement took place. Ayesha, the Prophet's
wife, reports that he once said to her: "I know when you are unhappy and
when you are happy." She asked how he knew that. He said: "When you
are happy you may answer: 'Yes indeed, by God, the Lord of Muhammad.' When you
are unhappy you would say: 'No, by God, the Lord of Ibrahim.'" She said:
"That is true. I only stop using your name." (Related by Al-Bukhari
and Muslim)
This shows how Ayesha was keen to observe Islamic values even when she was
unhappy. Obviously, the only reason, which made her unhappy with the Prophet,
peace be upon him, at any particular moment, could be attributed to jealousy.
Since she was one of several wives of the Prophet, and since the Prophet, peace
be upon him, was always keen to maintain absolute justice between his wives, she
might have felt on occasions that something was not to her liking. She might be
dissatisfied. Her dissatisfaction, however, did not manifest itself in any way
other than swearing by the Lord of Muhammad. That is indeed the sort of moderate
expression of dissatisfaction, which we should emulate when we are unhappy with
our Muslim brothers or sisters.