Verse 12:
O you who have believed, avoid much suspicion, for some suspicions are sins. Do not spy, nor should any of you backbite the other. Is there any among you who would like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, you yourselves abhor it. Fear Allah, for Allah is Acceptor of repentance and All-Merciful.
O you, who have believed, avoid much suspicion for some suspicions are sins. 24
Commentary: What is forbidden is not conjecture (assumption) as such but excessive conjecture and following every kind of conjecture, and the reason given is that some conjectures are sins. In order to understand this command we should analyse and see what the kinds of conjectures (assumptions) are and what is the moral position of each.
One kind of conjecture is that which is morally approved and is laudable and desirable and praiseworthy from the religious point of view, for example a good conjecture in respect of Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم and the believers and those people with whom one comes in common contact daily and concerning whom there may be no rational ground for having an evil assumption.
The second kind of conjecture is that which one cannot do without in practical life. For example, in a law court, a judge has to consider the evidence placed before him and give his decision on the basis of the most probable conjecture, for he cannot have direct knowledge of the facts of the matter, and the opinion that is based on evidence is mostly based on the most probable conjecture and not on certainty. Likewise, in most cases when one or the other decision has to be taken, and the knowledge of the reality cannot possibly be attained, there is no way out for men but to form an opinion on the basis of a conjecture.
The third kind of conjecture, which is although a suspicion, it is permissible in nature, and it cannot be regarded a sin. For instance, if there are clear signs and pointers in the character of a person (or persons), or in his dealings and conduct on the basis of which he may not deserve to enjoy one’s good conjecture, and there are rational grounds for having suspicions against him, the Shariah does not demand that one should behave like a simpleton and continue to have a good conjecture about him. The last limit of this lawful conjecture, however, is that one should conduct himself cautiously in order to ward off any possible mischief (harm) from him; it is not right to take an action against him only on the basis of a conjecture.
The fourth kind of conjecture which is, in fact, a sin is that one should entertain a suspicion in respect of a person without any ground, or should start with suspicion in forming an opinion about others, or should entertain a suspicion about the people whose apparent conditions show that they are good and noble. Likewise, it is also a sin that when there is an equal chance of the evil and goodness in the word or deed of a person, that one should regard it as only evil out of suspicion. For instance, if a gentleman, while leaving a place of assembly, picks up another person’s shoes instead of his own, and we form the opinion that he has done so with the intention of stealing the shoes, whereas this could be possible because of oversight as well, there is no reason for adopting the evil opinion instead of the good opinion except suspicion.
This analysis makes it plain that conjecture by itself is not anything forbidden; rather in some cases and situations it is commendable, in some situations inevitable, in some permissible up to a certain extent and impermissible beyond it, and in some cases absolutely unlawful. That is why it has not been enjoined that one should refrain from conjecture or suspicion altogether but what is enjoined is that one should refrain from much suspicion. Then, to make the intention of the Command explicit, it has been said that some conjectures are sinful. From this warning, it follows automatically that whenever a person is forming an opinion on the basis of conjecture, or is about to take an action, he should examine the case and see whether the conjecture he is entertaining is not a sin, whether the conjecture is really necessary, whether there are sound reasons for the conjecture, and whether the conduct one is adopting on the basis of the conjecture is permissible. Everyone who fears God will certainly take these precautions. To make one’s conjecture free and independent of every such care and consideration is the pastime of only those people who are fearless of God and thoughtless of the accountability of the Hereafter.
Do not spy,25
Commentary: “Do not spy:” Do not grope after the secrets of the people. Do not search for their defects and weaknesses. Do not pry into their conditions and affairs. Whether this is done because of suspicion, or for causing harm to somebody with an evil intention, or for satisfying one’s own curiosity, it is forbidden by the Shariah in every case. It does not behove a Believer that he should spy on the hidden affairs of other people, and should try to peep at them from behind curtains to find out their defects and their weaknesses. This also includes reading other people’s private letters, listening secretly to private conversations, peeping into the neighbor’s house, and trying to get information in different ways about the domestic life or private affairs of others. This is a grave immorality which causes serious mischief in society. That is why the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم once said in an address about those who pry into other people’s affairs:
“O people who have professed belief verbally but faith has not yet entered your hearts: do not pry into the affairs of the Muslims, for he who will pry into the affairs of the Muslims, Allah will pry into his affairs, and he whom Allah follows inquisitively is disgraced by Him in his own house.” (Abu Da’ud)
Hadrat Mu’awiyah says that he himself heard the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم say: “If you start prying into the secret affairs of the people, you will corrupt them, or at least drive them very near corruption.” (Abu Da’ud)
In another hadith it is stated: “When you happen to form an evil opinion about somebody, do not pry about it.” (Al-Jassis, Ahkam Al-Quran)
According to another hadith the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said: The one who saw a secret affair of somebody and then concealed it, is as though he saved a girl who had been buried alive.” (Al-Jassis)
nor should any of you backbite the other. 26
Commentary: Ghiba (backbiting) has been defined as: “It is saying on the back of a person something which would hurt him if he came to know of it.” This definition has been reported from the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم . According to a tradition which Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others have related on the authority of Hadrat Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه (May Allah be pleased with him), the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم defined ghiba as follows:
“It is talking about your brother in a way irksome [irritating] to him.” It was asked: “What if the defect being talked about is present in my brother?” The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم replied: “If it is present in him, it would be ghiba [backbiting]; if it is not there, it would be slandering him.”
In another tradition which Imam Malik has related in Mu’watta on the authority of Hadrat Muttalib bin Abdullah, “A person asked the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم : “What is ghiba?” The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم replied: “It is talking about your brother in a way irksome to him.” He asked: “Even if it is true, O Messenger of Allah?” He صلى الله عليه و سلم replied: If what you said was false, it would then be a calumny.”
These traditions make it plain that uttering a false accusation against a person in his absence is calumny and describing a real defect in him is ghiba (backbiting); whether this is done in express words or by reference and allusion, in every case it is forbidden. Likewise, whether this is done in the lifetime of a person or after his death, it is forbidden in both cases.
The only exception to this prohibition are the cases in which there may be a genuine need of speaking ill of a person behind his back or after his death, and this may not be fulfilled without resort to backbiting, and if it was not resorted to, a greater evil might result than the backbiting itself. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has described this exception as a principle: “the worst excess is to attack the honor of a Muslim unjustly. (Abu Da’ud)
In this saying, the condition of “unjustly” points out that doing so with justice is permissible. Then in the practice of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم himself we find some precedents which show what is implied by “justice” and in what conditions and cases backbiting may be lawful to the extent as necessary.
Once a desert Arab came and offered his Prayer under the leadership of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , and as soon as the Prayer was concluded, he walked away saying: “O God, have mercy on me and on Muhammad, and make no one else a partner in this mercy beside the two of us.” The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said to his Companions: “What do you say: who is more ignorant, this person or his camel? Didn’t you hear what he said?” (Abu Da’ud). The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم had to say this in his absence for he had left soon after the Prayer was over. Since he had uttered a wrong thing in the presence of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , the Prophet’s remaining quiet at it could cause the misunderstanding that saying such a thing might in some degree be lawful. Therefore it was necessary that he صلى الله عليه و سلم should contradict it.
Two of the Companions, Hadrat Mu'awiyah and Hadrat Abul Jahm رضي الله عنهم (May Allah be pleased with them) sent the proposal of marriage to a lady, Fatima Bint Qaisرضي الله عنها . She came to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and asked for his advice. He said: “Mu’awiyah is a poor man and Abul Jahm beats his wives much.” (Bukhari, Muslim). In this case, as there was the question of the lady’s future and she had consulted the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم for his advice, he deemed it necessary to inform her of the two men’s weaknesses.
One day when the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم was in the apartment of Hadrat A’isha رضي الله عنها , a man came and sought permission to see him. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم remarked that he was a very bad man of his tribe, then he went out and talked to him politely. When he came back into the house, Hadrat A’isha رضي الله عنها asked: “You have talked to him politely whereas when you were going out you said something different about him.” The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said: “On the Day of Resurrection the worst abode in the sight of Allah will be of the person whom the people start avoiding because of his abusive language.” (Bukhari, Muslim). A study of this incident will show that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , in spite of having a bad opinion about the person, talked to him politely because that was the demand of his morals; but he had the apprehension lest the people of his house should consider the person to be his friend when they would see him treating him kindly and then the person might use this impression to his own advantage. Therefore the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم warned Hadrat A’isha رضي الله عنها telling her that he was a bad man of his tribe.
Once Hind Bint Utbah, wife of Abu Sufyan, came to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and said: “Abu Sufyan is a miserly person; he does not provide enough for me and my children’s needs.” (Bukhari, Muslim) Although this complaint from the wife in the absence of the husband was backbiting, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم permitted it because the oppressed one has a right that he or she may take the complaint of injustice to a person who has the power to get it removed.
From these precedents of the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , the jurists and traditionists have deduced this principle: “Ghiba (backbiting) is permissible only in case it is needed for a real and genuine necessity (genuine from the Shariah point of view) and the necessity may not be satisfied without having resort to backbiting.” Then, on the basis of the same principle, the scholars have declared that backbiting is permissible in the following cases:
1. Complaining by an oppressed person against the oppressor before every such person whom he thinks can do something to save him from the injustice.
2. To mention the evils of a person (or persons), with the intention of reform, before those who can be expected to help remove the evils.
3. To state the facts of a case before a legal expert for the purpose of seeking a religious or legal ruling regarding an unlawful act committed by someone.
4. To warn the people of the mischief of a person (or persons) so that they may ward off the evil. For example, it is not only permissible but obligatory to mention the weaknesses of the reporters, witnesses, and writers, for without it, it is not possible to safeguard the Shariah against the propagations of false reports, safeguard the courts against injustices, and the common people or students against errors and misunderstandings. Or, for instance, if a person wants to have the relationship of marriage with somebody, or wishes to rent a house in the neighbourhood of somebody, or wants to give something into the custody of someone, and consults another person, it is obligatory for him to apprise him of all aspects so that he is not deceived because of ignorance.
5. To raise voice against and criticize the evils of the people who may be spreading sin and immorality and error or corrupting the people’s faith and persecuting them.
6. To use nicknames for the people who may have become well known by those names, but this should be done for the purpose of their recognition and not with a view to condemn them. (For details see Fath-Al-Bari Volume 10, page 362; Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawi; Riyad-as-Saliheen; Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Quran; Ruh Al Ma’ani – commentary of the verse wa laa yaghtab ba’dukum ba’dan).
Apart from these exceptions, it is absolutely forbidden to speak ill of a person behind his back. If what is spoken is true, it is ghiba (backbiting); if it is false, it is calumny; and if it is meant to make two persons quarrel, it is slander. The Shariah has declared all these as forbidden. In the Islamic society it is incumbent on every Muslim to refute a false charge made against a person in his presence and not to listen to it quietly, and to tell those who are speaking ill of somebody without a genuine religious need to fear God and desist from the sin. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has said: “If a person does not support and help a Muslim when he is being disgraced and his honor being attacked, Allah also does not support and help him when he stands in need of His Help; and if a person helps and supports a Muslim when his honor is being attacked and he is being disgraced, Allah Almighty also helps him when he wants that Allah should help him.”(Abu Da’ud)
As for the backbiter, as soon as he realizes that he is committing this sin, or has committed it, his first duty is to offer repentance before Allah and restrain himself from this forbidden act. His second duty is that he should compensate for it as far as possible. If he has backbitten a dead person, he should ask Allah’s forgiveness for the person as often as he can. If he has backbitten a living person, and what he said was also false, he should refute it before the people before whom he had made the calumny. And if what he said was true, he should never speak ill of him in future, and should ask pardon of the person he had backbitten. A section of the scholars has expressed the opinion that pardon should be asked only in case the other person has come to know of it; otherwise one should only offer repentance. This is because if the person concerned is unaware and the backbiter, in order to ask pardon, goes and tells him that he has backbitten him, he would certainly feel hurt.
Is there any among you who would like to eat the flesh of his dead brother?
Nay, you yourselves abhor it. Fear Allah, for Allah is Acceptor of repentance and All-Merciful. 27
Commentary: In this sentence Allah, by likening backbiting to eating the dead brother’s flesh, has given the idea of its being an abomination. Eating the dead flesh is by itself abhorrent. And when the flesh is not of an animal but of a man, and that too of one’s own dead brother, abomination would be added to abomination. Then, by presenting the simile in the interrogative tone it has been made all the more impressive, so that every person may ask his own conscience and decide whether he would like to eat the flesh of his dead brother. If he would not, and he abhors it by nature, how would he like that he should attack the honor of his brother-in-faith in his absence when he cannot defend himself and when he is wholly unaware that he is being disgraced. This shows that the basic reason of forbidding backbiting is not that the person being backbitten is being hurt but that speaking ill of a person in his absence is by itself unlawful and forbidden whether he is aware of it, or not, and whether he feels hurt by it or not. Obviously, eating the flesh of a dead man is not forbidden because it hurts the dead man - the dead person is wholly unaware that somebody is eating of his body -but because this act by itself is an abomination. Likewise, if the person who is backbitten also does not come to know of it through any means, he will remain unaware throughout his life that someone had attacked his honor at a particular time before some particular people and on that account he had stood disgraced in the eyes of those people. Because of this unawareness he will not feel at all hurt by this backbiting, but his honor would in any case be sullied. Therefore, this act in its nature is not any different from eating the flesh of a dead brother.
------------
Note: continue to revise the portions you have memorized, preferably reciting several verses in every prayer and also listen to an audio recitation to improve your memorization and pronunciation / tajweed.
