The companions of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (as) asked him about...

The companions of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (as) asked him about the meaning of the tradition of the Prophet (S), “A Mu’min’s woman is taboo for another Mu’min.” The Imam replied: Revealing a Mu’min’s secret is haram. The fast and the ablution of a backbiter goes void. One who recounts the failings of others, himself has many failings. Amir’ul-Mu’mineen Ameer al Mimineen (as) has asked people to refrain from backbiting. This habit is the fodder of the dogs of the Hell.

Meaning Of Backbiting Talking about a Mu’min in a tone that would hurt him, if he were around, and heard you talk, is tantamount to backbiting. Even if this backbiting is in gestures and and subtle indications, it is taboo. However if the name of the person is not mentioned and only said that in the city there is a person who has such and such a bad habit, then it will not be termed backbiting.

But if certain traits are attributed to a person in his absence, and, in fact, he doesn’t manifest those traits, then the act is backbiting and is taboo. In fact this would be an allegation much worse than backbiting. Justification For Backbiting There are ten situations in which backbiting is justified When a tyrant oppresses someone and the oppressed persons seeks help from another person in authority by informing him of the oppression he has suffered at the hands of the tyrant.

Recounting the faults of a person to someone else with the solemn hope that this way the faults of the person could be corrected. While applying for an edict ( fatwa) mentioning the name of the other party. For example, informing to the jurist the name of a brother who is denying to him his just rights. If a Mu’min takes the advice of another Mu’min whether he can entrust his valuables to a particular person and that whether that person, in his opinion, can be depended upon.

Revealing the hypocritic acts of the hypocrites that can harm the society is justified. If a jurist ( mujtahid) points out the khata al-mujtahidi ( error of judgement) of another mujtahid, it is permissible. Arguing about the veracity or otherwise of narrators of events is permitted. When people are told about a particular failing of a person and they don’t agree, then highlighting that defect as an explanation is justified. For example, someone says about a person that he is volubly talkative!

If a group of persons is compulsively commiting the same mistake, then it is permissible to talk about their failings.