Discussion with students on the topic of backbiting rulers and scholars.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Some people lie in wait for students of knowledge with words, to tarnish their reputation. What is their purpose?
The Shaykh : This is also one of the things that a person belittles, yet it is among the destructive acts. We have mentioned that backbiting rulers, whether they are scholars or princes, is more severe than backbiting others. This is because backbiting princes and rulers causes their weight to diminish in the eyes of people, and their obedience to be lessened, and rebellion against them to increase. And if they do any deed, even if it is as good as the sun, people do not see any merit in it. Rulers and scholars are even more severe in this regard, because speaking about scholars also leads to lowering their status and to the rejection of what they brought from the Shari'ah. Thus, this person becomes the cause of rejecting the Shari'ah that these scholars bring. So the matter is very serious; meaning, exposing scholars and princes is far greater than exposing the general public.
The questioner : But now, our time is different. I mean, for example, we clarify matters regarding rulers or scholars. I mean, is there something that clarifies that one backbites about? I mean, they do actions, I mean, one is forced to say something about them.
The Shaykh : Forced! No, young Adam, how is it forced? If you see something from the scholars or the princes that, in your view, contradicts the Shari'ah, what removes this is not that you speak about them in gatherings. What removes it is that you contact them.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No... I write a letter, or I contact someone who can contact the rulers, and convey it to him. As for sitting, for example, every quarter hour speaking, yes, it is as if you have been appointed to spread their defects. This is a mistake, this is a mistake, it leads to rebellion against them.
The questioner : But this, Shaykh, is not easy in all places. In some countries, the matter of contacting the rulers is considered, I mean, a waste of time. You cannot get your message to the ruler.
The Shaykh : Well, can you not contact someone who contacts the ruler?
The questioner : Never. It is blocked. Even if this man you contact has his status, the questioner says the message stops there and does not reach.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : This is the reality, I mean.
The Shaykh : This does not contradict. If we speak in gatherings and make them the fruit of the gatherings, what do we benefit?
The questioner : No, I do not say that this is permissible for everyone to say whatever they wish. But some preachers speak about these rulers.
The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not see this. I see that if a person speaks, there is no harm in speaking about the things that are widespread among people, and warning against them. But speaking about the ruler himself is difficult.
The questioner : Especially if the ruler is, I mean, at war with Islam.
The Shaykh : It does not serve the public benefit. Yes, if he is at war with Islam and speaking about him is effective. But the general rule is that the matter is the opposite. The general rule is that the government that follows up on this person you point to will follow the good ones, what do they say, and then add ten grains to the grain. Yes.
The questioner : Yes, but if we do this, the truth will be buried.
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not buried. No, no, I am clarifying. I am clarifying the mistake in general. For example, I say: It is not permissible for us to watch what is broadcast on television, for example, or what is written in the press, that contradicts Islam, or that leads to the destruction of morals, or the like. There is no harm. Say this with your full mouth, and there is no harm. And this is obligatory upon you. Because the address in this is directed to whom?
The questioner : To the people.
The Shaykh : To the people, to the general public. But for example, the Minister of Information, I say for example, this man is a deceiver, a traitor to his trust, yes, a criminal, and the like. This has no benefit, this has no benefit. Except if we assume that if we say something like this, we say it with truth and it becomes a cause for his removal from the government. Correct, we can say this. Yes, we took three.
The Shaykh : This is also one of the things that a person belittles, yet it is among the destructive acts. We have mentioned that backbiting rulers, whether they are scholars or princes, is more severe than backbiting others. This is because backbiting princes and rulers causes their weight to diminish in the eyes of people, and their obedience to be lessened, and rebellion against them to increase. And if they do any deed, even if it is as good as the sun, people do not see any merit in it. Rulers and scholars are even more severe in this regard, because speaking about scholars also leads to lowering their status and to the rejection of what they brought from the Shari'ah. Thus, this person becomes the cause of rejecting the Shari'ah that these scholars bring. So the matter is very serious; meaning, exposing scholars and princes is far greater than exposing the general public.
The questioner : But now, our time is different. I mean, for example, we clarify matters regarding rulers or scholars. I mean, is there something that clarifies that one backbites about? I mean, they do actions, I mean, one is forced to say something about them.
The Shaykh : Forced! No, young Adam, how is it forced? If you see something from the scholars or the princes that, in your view, contradicts the Shari'ah, what removes this is not that you speak about them in gatherings. What removes it is that you contact them.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No... I write a letter, or I contact someone who can contact the rulers, and convey it to him. As for sitting, for example, every quarter hour speaking, yes, it is as if you have been appointed to spread their defects. This is a mistake, this is a mistake, it leads to rebellion against them.
The questioner : But this, Shaykh, is not easy in all places. In some countries, the matter of contacting the rulers is considered, I mean, a waste of time. You cannot get your message to the ruler.
The Shaykh : Well, can you not contact someone who contacts the ruler?
The questioner : Never. It is blocked. Even if this man you contact has his status, the questioner says the message stops there and does not reach.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : This is the reality, I mean.
The Shaykh : This does not contradict. If we speak in gatherings and make them the fruit of the gatherings, what do we benefit?
The questioner : No, I do not say that this is permissible for everyone to say whatever they wish. But some preachers speak about these rulers.
The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not see this. I see that if a person speaks, there is no harm in speaking about the things that are widespread among people, and warning against them. But speaking about the ruler himself is difficult.
The questioner : Especially if the ruler is, I mean, at war with Islam.
The Shaykh : It does not serve the public benefit. Yes, if he is at war with Islam and speaking about him is effective. But the general rule is that the matter is the opposite. The general rule is that the government that follows up on this person you point to will follow the good ones, what do they say, and then add ten grains to the grain. Yes.
The questioner : Yes, but if we do this, the truth will be buried.
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not buried. No, no, I am clarifying. I am clarifying the mistake in general. For example, I say: It is not permissible for us to watch what is broadcast on television, for example, or what is written in the press, that contradicts Islam, or that leads to the destruction of morals, or the like. There is no harm. Say this with your full mouth, and there is no harm. And this is obligatory upon you. Because the address in this is directed to whom?
The questioner : To the people.
The Shaykh : To the people, to the general public. But for example, the Minister of Information, I say for example, this man is a deceiver, a traitor to his trust, yes, a criminal, and the like. This has no benefit, this has no benefit. Except if we assume that if we say something like this, we say it with truth and it becomes a cause for his removal from the government. Correct, we can say this. Yes, we took three.