Inspirational imagination and sublime commitment-I

A contender may be vying for any post or responsibility; his past and present are scrutinised in every sensible and conscious society to determine his future prospects. Rather, a candidate is present himself in person; sometimes he puts in the certificates of his ability, eligibility and good character to help his selection expectancy. In this regard, his certificates are methodically verified, while in some cases, the candidate is also meticulously interviewed.

Besides, the more a post is sensitive and obligation imperative, the more care is taken with inclusive scrutiny. In such cases, extraordinary examination, multidimensional scrutiny and extraordinary investigation is conducted to avert any impending harm in future and to achieve the proposed objectives.

The appointments of political, official and religious leadership are more critical because powerful posts bear more onus of responsibility of country and nation, affecting each individual belonging to cross-section of the nation.

As the aspirant, having the determination to serve a nation as its ruler, carrying the responsibility to streamline its affairs and serve the nation, is not only answerable to Allah Almighty but also to the people.

Therefore, sagacity demands that he should undergo all-inclusive scrutiny to the satisfaction of the people whom he has to serve, carries extra ordinary importance. In this backdrop, any probe in his personal character, ability and capacity is helpful in decision-making process.

In a democratic system, every citizen of 18 years of age or above has to play their role in the decision-making process, and their choice determines the future direction of the country and the nation for the next five years.

Therefore, the responsibility of every individual increases, and in this regard, the additional burden of awareness about the relevant candidates rests on the conscious citizens. In this regard, journalists and honest people, unbiased scholars and fair intellectuals play their effective and positive role. A question, anyhow, may be asked that mentioning someone’s evil deeds is immoral, and it falls under the category of backbiting ( ). So, what should be done regarding the candidates of the authority?

It is a very critical question. Doubtlessly, it is our moral and religious responsibility to hide any weakness or defect of any human being, while pointing out defects is reprehensible and impugnable offense. We are, in general, commanded to cover up, though there are a few exceptions when evil should be exposed, as per need.

One of them is when the person whose actions or measures may cause harm to the society, or who may detriment the society due to his character, behaviour, conduct or mentality, etc. To inform the people about them is tantamount to informing them of any disease or epidemic which is contagious and fatal for others. In such cases, it is not right to keep it a secret, but it would be criminal negligence to ignore measures to protect people from it.

In the same way, in order to save society from the evil and malevolence of someone who harm society, it is not forbidden to mention their evil or flaw. Rather, it is an act of kindness, as it is said in al-Tabarani and Bayhaqi that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) has said: “Do you avoid mentioning a depraved person? When will the people recognise him? Mention a depraved one with all his evils, so that people should avoid him”.

The jurists have clearly mentioned the situation when it is correct to describe the evil in a person, as Darmukhtar Rid al-Muhthar says: “A person prays and fasts, but harms other Muslims with his tongue and hands; the exposure of harassment is not backbiting because the purpose of this exposé is that people being aware of his acts and should keep him off. They should not be deceived by his prayers and fasting and get into trouble”. A Hadith says: “Are you afraid of exposing a wicked person? It is a gross mistake. Explain what is wrong with it. So, that people should avoid his mischief”.

Now, this permission is for the common transgressor and wicked ones. In order to protect people from their evil, it is permissible to reveal their evil, and it is not backbiting. While those corrupt and dishonest evil-doers, whether they are politicians or wealthy people or candidates of high posts powers, their harm can be much more far-reaching than the harm of an ordinary evil-mongers.

Therefore, it is more important to reveal their immorality and debauchery to save people from their mischief. But, it goes with the necessary condition that the exposure is not itself an evil. The real purpose should be to eradicate this evil and redeem this habit, or people should avoid its evil and not impose it on themselves in ignorance.

The second situation is that a person who does bad deeds openly and does not care what people will say about him, it is not forbidden to describe his bad deeds. But, his other things which are not exposed, it is backbiting to reveal them. It is said in a Hadith: “Whoever removes the veil of modesty from his face, his exposure is not backbiting”.

There are clear instructions in this respect in Ahadith. In the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Hazrat Abu Huraira (RA), the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “All my Ummah is secure, except such debauched ones who commit their sins openly. They are not to exposure It is their daring impunity that they committed some evil thing at night and God covered it, but in the morning, they disclosed it. It means God shrouded their wrongs, but they removed that veil which God put on them”.

While Imam Bayhaqi narrated from Hazrat Anas (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Whoever removes the veil of modesty, his disclosure is not backbiting”. And Tabarani narrated a tradition that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “There is no backbiting of a transgressor”.

The third situation is that if the person from whom advice is sought, reveals the faults and vices of the person about whom the advice is given, then it is not backbiting. It is in the Hadith, “Whoever is consulted is a trustworthy person”. Rather, not showing his evil is dishonesty. For example, if a person wants to marry or get his children married, etc, and mentioned to another that my intention is like this, what is your opinion, the person should state what information he has. It is not backbiting.

Similarly, if a person wants to share someone in trade or wants to keep something in trust with him, or wants to live in someone’s neighbourhood, and he seeks advice from another about such things, then this person should describe their evil. It is also not backbiting.

The fourth situation is if the situation of such a person is told to the ruler or the judge so that he gets punished and desists from his actions, it does not fall in the category of backbiting and badmouthing. That is, it is not backbiting to complain to the ruler about someone’s oppression and cruelty. For example, such and such a person has committed this act of oppression and abuse to me, so that the ruler should dispense justice. In the same way, while seeking ruling from a mufti, revealing a person’s evil deed that such and such person has done this to me.

How to avoid that person? Though it is better not to name, rather to say that someone did this thing to someone rather use a fictitious name. But, if the name is spoken, even then it is permissible. There is no malice in it. As mentioned in the Sahih Hadith: “Hind complained to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) about Hazrat Abu Sufyan (RA), “He is a miser and does not provide enough sustenance for me and my children; so if I may take something without his knowledge”. He said, “You can take as much as is sufficient for you and your children as per need”.

These are some cases in which, in view of expediency and wisdom, it is not prohibited to mention the fault or evil of an ordinary person. While if the matter is about election for a sensitive post, the need of caution increases. This case calls for more attention, continuous constant and strict examination and care.

The modus operandi of the State of Madinah was that, despite a thorough investigation before the appointment, the most important and mandatory instructions were given at the time of appointment, even regarding personal life. In which omissions were strictly enforced, ranging from reprimand to removal from the post. For this purpose, Ameerul Momineen Hazrat Syedna Umar Farooq Azam (RA) appointed Hazrat Syedna Muhammad bin Muslimah (RA) to appraise and evaluate the performance of his appointed governors, administrators and judges. Wherever he received a complaint of any kind of a person in authority, he would immediately reach there and take statements and opinions from the people in the general assembly and conduct regular investigations.

Sometime, representatives would be sent for investigation. Sometime, the official was summoned to Madinah and investigated. If the accusation was proved, strict action was taken. Moral offenses and Shariah prohibitions were certainly unpardonable, even the slightest negligence in personal matters was strictly accountable. Moral offenses, such as arrogance, pride and sense of superiority, were immediately impeached. If the ruler failed to look after the sick and some weak citizen was not heard, the ruler was held accountable.

To be continued...