Slander in the Service of Piety, an essay by Mohammad Soroush Mahallati

Some Islamic thinkers, adopting a pathological view of the moral condition of our society, have noticed this dangerous sickness: among many of the devout, “slandering and calumniating” opponents is deemed permissible. They reason that one must destroy their reputation and standing through slander so that no one trusts them and falls under the influence of their error and misguidance. Our current social conditions, which, in the words of Imam Khomeini, must be called “the day of slander” [1], confront us with the question: what is the matter? What is the root of this delusion that “any lie can be attributed to opponents”? What are its consequences and repercussions? Where did this notion come from, and where is it taking us? ...

1- The Instruction of Mubahata A narration from the Holy Prophet (PBUH) has been transmitted in which he stated the duty of the Ummah towards the “People of Innovation (Ahl al-Bid‘ah)” and instructed that one should dissociate from them, recount their faults and flaws, and render them “dumbfounded (mabhut)” so that they do not covet the corruption of Islam: «إذا رأیتم اهل الریب و البدع من بعدی فأظهروا البرائة منهم ... و باهتوهم کیلایطعموا فی الفساد فی الاسلام و یحذّرهم الناس[2]». The word “Bahituhum” is derived from the root “Baht,” meaning “to render dumbfounded.” That is, debate with them so forcefully and present such firm and decisive proof that you render the People of Innovation “bewildered and dumbfounded,” incapable of answering. Just as Prophet Abraham argued so logically and firmly with the idolatrous disbeliever that he rendered him dumbfounded: «فبهت الذی کفر[3]». Authoritative sources of Arabic lexicon have mentioned this same meaning for this root. For instance, Jawhari in al-Sihah says: “Bahatahu Bahtan: he took him by surprise; and Buhita al-rajul: when he became bewildered and confused.” Fayyumi in al-Misbah says: “Buht: bewilderment and confusion.” Zamakhshari in Asas al-Balaghah says that Baht and Bahata (the triliteral root and its augmented form) have no difference: “Bahatahu bi-kadha wa Bahatahu bihi.” Ibn Faris also states in Mu‘jam Maqayis al-Lughah that the origin of this root is the meaning of “bewilderment,” and “Buhtan” means a lie: “al-Ba’ wa al-Ha’ wa al-Ta’ aslun wahid wa huwa ka al-dahsh wa al-hayrah, yuqal: Buhita al-rajul yubhatu bahtan wa al-bayhatah: al-hayrah, fa-amma al-buhtan fa al-kadhib.” In any case, linguistically, there is no reason to interpret “Bahituhum” as “slandering, calumniating, and attributing lies” and conclude that the Messenger of God permitted us to pin any lie on deviant individuals and attribute any falsehood to them in order to crush and discredit them!

2- Dumbfounding Logic Until the twelfth century AH, the traditionists (Muhaddithun) interpreted the narration of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as we have indicated, saying that one must confront the People of Innovation with the weapon of logic and shatter their fancies. The great traditionist Fayd Kashani considered “Bahituhum” to mean: Speak to them in such a way that they fall silent and have nothing left to say: i.e., “Jadiluhum wa askituhum wa aqta‘u al-kalam ‘alayhim [4].” In al-Wafi, although Fayd points out various meanings and different possibilities for the meaning of a narration where they exist, here he does not allude to any other meaning, even as a possibility. After him, Mulla Salih Mazandarani, in his commentary on Usul al-Kafi, interprets the narration in the same way and explains that “Baht” means “bewilderment,” so the meaning of the narration is that you should block the paths for the innovators with “decisive proof” and firm reason so that they become dumbfounded [5]. Then, ‘Allamah Majlisi also cites the same words of the lexicographers, interprets the narration like the previous traditionists, and considers “Buhtan” (slander) for the sake of religion to be a less probable interpretation: “Al-zahir anna al-murad bi al-mubahatah ilzamuhum bi al-hujaj al-qawati‘ wa ja‘luhum mutahayyirin la yuhayyirun jawaban [6].” In some of his Persian treatises, Majlisi also translated the narration as follows: “Complete the proof upon them so that they do not transgress in corrupting the religion of Islam [7].”

3- The Duty of Truthfulness Until the twelfth century AH, Shi‘i jurists, in their jurisprudential discussions, proceeded on the basis that even innovators in religion should not be falsely maligned, and it is not permissible to lie about them. Even if they have acted to destroy religion, we do not have the right, in order to discredit them, to make false accusations against them. The Second Martyr (Shahid Thani) said: In criticizing and objecting to them, one must not deviate an iota from the truth or commit falsehood: “It is correct to confront them with what is true regarding them, not with lies [8].” Sayyid Sahib Riyad, after citing the same narration, also says: It is not permissible to lie when dealing with them, because lying is forbidden. He is unwilling to exempt lying against opponents, even if they are innovators, from the prohibition of falsehood, or to accept it as a means to destroy corrupt individuals! “And it is not correct to confront him with what would be a lie to him, due to its prohibition [9].” Sahib Jawahir, in his discussion of qadhf (false accusation) in his Kitab al-Hudud, also cites this narration but warns that speaking ill of the people of innovation does not mean making false accusations against them and charging them with what they have not done: “Yes, this does not apply to what is not permissible to confront him with, such as accusing him of what he does not do [10].”

4- The Expediency of Slander Unfortunately, from the thirteenth century AH onward, a black mark stained the white page of Shi‘i jurisprudence, and the theory of “Slander the people of innovation to drive them from the field” emerged in fiqh. This theory was initially raised as a possibility, that “bahituhum” could mean “slander them,” and then, in support of this possibility, it was said: What prevents slandering them from being permissible due to “expediency” (maslaha)? And what expediency is greater than that by slandering them—for instance, saying that so-and-so is a thief, or has become an infidel, or is guilty of adultery and sodomy—one disgraces and dishonors him so that people distance themselves from him and their religion is preserved? Through this slander, although one person is dishonored, the religion and faith of the community remain sound!! “And it is possible to retain its apparent meaning by permitting lying against them for the sake of expediency, for the expediency of alienating people from them is stronger than the evil of lying [11].” In this process, initially “a possibility” was raised but was considered “contrary to the apparent meaning,” yet later that same possibility was affirmed as “the apparent meaning of the narration,” and then a “philosophy” was articulated for it, such that with this philosophy, there is no need for the narration’s indication at all. That philosophy is that in cases of conflict (tazahum), by disregarding one important ruling, one must safeguard the observance of the “more important ruling” (hukm ahamm), which entails a greater and stronger expediency. For example, Ayatollah Khoei, in response to the question of whether opponents and people of innovation can be “satirized” with false accusations and faults and flaws they do not possess, said: Although lying is forbidden, sometimes “expediency” dictates that they be “slandered,” and to disgrace them, ugly deeds they have not committed be attributed to them, so that ordinary religious people distance themselves from them and are not influenced by them!! “A binding expediency may sometimes necessitate the permissibility of slandering them, disparaging them, and mentioning them with what is not in them, in order to disgrace them. The expediency in that is to make their true nature clear to the weak among the believers, so that they are not deceived by their vile opinions [12].” Ayatollah Golpayegani, also interpreting “bahituhum” as “accuse them,” concluded that, as required by this narration, it must be said that in such cases, lying is permissible, because through this lie a more important expediency is fulfilled, and that expediency is “dishonoring” the innovator among the people [13]. This theory in our era has not been limited to those maraji‘, but has also drawn some other scholars in its wake [14], to the extent that it is acceptable to Ayatollah Mo’men that: qadhf and falsely accusing them of adultery is not only permissible but even preferable. And by this narration, the narrations that declare qadhf forbidden are particularized (takhsis). (Of course, qadhf is permissible in doubtful cases, not with knowledge of its falsehood) [15].

5-The Consequence of Slander The theory permitting slander against opponents is, from the standpoint of its argumentative foundations, entirely vulnerable and does not require a detailed critique here, such as a) the departure from the lexical meaning of “buht,” which has been noted by commentators on the hadith, b) disregard for the “brevity” of the hadith, given the homonymy of “buht” between the two meanings of “bewilderment” and “slander,” rendering it unreliable as evidence, c) a lack of reflection on internal and external contextual clues indicating that “buht” here does not mean slander, d) ignoring the significant “corruptions” of slandering religious and political opponents and considering it to be in the “interest” of religion, and so on. Yet more important than these scholarly discussions, which are significant in their own right, is this: in light of this jurisprudential and ethical theory, “what kind of society” is built? And in what direction do scholarly dialogues proceed? And where do the political rivalries of factions lead? What atmosphere prevails over the country’s media landscape? And so on. If individuals with this outlook attain governmental positions, and when faced with protests, whether justified or unjustified, they level “accusations” against their opponents, even if they are as pious as Solomon and Abu Dharr, what credibility do their words hold? And the memoirs they recount or write, to what extent are they accompanied by honesty? And if they present statistics and reports of the crimes of foreign enemies, how can they be taken as truth? And the confessions they extract from the accused and announce, for what reason would they be free of falsehood? If, until now, we had negated the “possibility of lying” and slander in their speech due to their religiosity, faith, justice, and piety, now, by the dictates of their piety and justice, how are we to deem their words true or false?

6- The Pretext of Reckless Indulgence The Prophet's tradition concerns the "people of innovation," but if the door of "slander" is opened against them among the devout, this door will also be open to others, and anyone, after being branded with the "stigma of innovation," becomes deserving of any attribution, and any vile act can be recorded in his name!! Were not Akhund Khorasani and Mirza Naeini, during the Constitutional Revolution, when they defended the establishment of the National Consultative Assembly and the drafting of the constitution, introduced as supporters of "innovation"? And is not Naeini's Tanbih al-Umma a response to this very accusation, saying: do not call the constitution an "innovation," do not call the consultative assembly an innovation, and do not consider resorting to the majority vote an innovation?[16] And was not the fatwa of Shahid Thani on the individual obligation of Friday prayer during the Occultation considered an "innovation" by some scholars?[17] In a society where some seek a pretext for "reckless indulgence," it is enough for a person, due to personal animosity and factional differences, to swiftly become an innovator, and then any attribution becomes permissible against him: that he is a Baha'i, a homosexual, and so on. The matter of "a pretext for indulgence" is recounted by Shahid Motahhari in this same context: "At a time when a shahi had value, a man went to a liquor store and said: Give me a shahi's worth of liquor. The liquor seller said: You can't get liquor for a shahi. He insisted: Just a sip at the bottom of a glass! The liquor seller said: People drink liquor to get drunk; what is the use of this tiny bit? He said: Just give me that; the reckless indulgence is my own affair!" Motahhari then says: Some people who are looking for a pretext for reckless indulgence and debauchery have said: We are permitted to fabricate any lie we wish against the people of innovation. Then, with anyone against whom they develop a personal animosity, they immediately level an accusation and say: He is a person of innovation, and they begin fabricating and slandering! Then see what befalls religion?[18] To clarify how far deviation and distortion have penetrated our society and how jurisprudence and ethics have been damaged, one can take the words of Muqaddas Ardabili as a measure, a figure who is a model for jurists in "investigation" and "piety": "A Muslim who criticizes and objects to the belief of an infidel can only use 'logical proof' against him, and has no right to make false accusations against him or slander him. He is not even permitted to use his apparent defects or inner faults as a cause for insult, addressing him as: O leper, even if he is indeed a leper, or to call him dull-witted and base! A Muslim has no right to lie about his infidel religion and creed, attributing to it vices and flaws that do not truly exist in it. The same understanding is derived from the rules of Shahid."[19] A number of eminent figures have criticized this unethical practice of a group of the devout who seek to defend religion through "slander." Allameh Sha'rani says: "Some common people" fabricate calumnies against the "people of innovation" and falsely attribute blasphemous statements to them to discredit them in the eyes of the people, but this act is wrong, and slander is forbidden: "It may occur in the minds of some common people that it is permissible to slander and fabricate against the people of innovation by attributing to them blasphemy they have not uttered, in order to increase people's aversion to them, and this is a mistake.[20]" But why did this great scholar attribute this act to "some common people" and why did he not see the role of "some elites" in this affair? The esteemed master, when criticizing this trend, also says: Some "illiterate" people have interpreted this "bahituhum" (confront them) to mean: slander them and fabricate lies, and then they say: The people of innovation are enemies of God, and I fabricate lies against him. With anyone against whom they have a personal enmity, they say: This accursed one is a person of innovation, forming a syllogism, and then they begin fabricating lies against him. It is then that you see lies upon lies being fabricated.[21] Allameh Motahhari, pointing to an example in this regard, calls our society a "disgraceful community." Motahhari, with his insight and foresight, had well diagnosed the ethical deviations among the devout and warned of their dangers. However, as long as we do not seek the roots of this deviation, and as long as we do not accept that these deviations are not confined to the sphere of the "illiterate in society" but are rooted outside it,[22] and ultimately, as long as we do not refine jurisprudential and ethical theories and do not make ethics sovereign over jurisprudence, politics, and religiosity, a remedy for this predicament is impossible.

1- Imam Khomeini, Sahifeh-ye Imam, vol. 10, p. 275: Today—as you can observe—is the day of “slander.” I do not know what has happened that everyone says whatever they wish about whomever they wish! Do they not know that violating the sanctity of a believer is violating the sanctity of God?! 2- Al-Kulayni, Al-Usul min al-Kafi, vol. 4, p. 123 3- Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 258 4- Fayd Kashani, vol. 1, p. 245 5- Mazandarani, Sharh Usul al-Kafi, vol. 10, p. 43 6- Majlisi, Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 11, p. 81 7- Majlisi, Risalah Hudud wa Qisas wa Diyat, p. 28 8- Mazandarani, Sharh Usul al-Kafi, vol. 10, p. 43 9- Al-Tabataba’i, Riyad al-Masa’il, vol. 16, p. 42 10- Al-Najafi, Jawahir al-Kalam, vol. 41, p. 413 11- Al-Ansari, Al-Makasib, vol. 2, p. 118 12- Al-Khu’i, Misbah al-Faqahah, vol. 1, p. 458 13- Al-Gulpaygani, Al-Durr al-Mandud, vol. 2, p. 148; of course, the compiler (Ayatollah Ali Karimi Jahromi) has objected to his teacher on this matter. 14- Sheikh Javad Tabrizi, Irshad al-Talib, vol. 1, p. 281 and Usas al-Hudud wa al-Ta‘zirat, p. 235 15- Muhammad Mu’min, Mabani Tahrir al-Wasilah, vol. 2, p. 452 16- Mirza Husayn Na’ini, Tanbih al-Ummah wa Tanzih al-Millah, pp. 101 and 115 17- Davazdah Risaleh-ye Fiqhi dar Mored-e Namaz-e Jom‘eh, p. 386 18- Shahid Motahhari, Majmu‘eh-ye Asar, vol. 16, p. 104 19- Ardabili, Majma‘ al-Fa’idah, vol. 13, p. 164 20- Sha‘rani, Ta‘liqeh bar Sharh-e Mulla Salih bar Kafi, vol. 10, p. 43 21- Shahid Motahhari, Majmu‘eh-ye Asar, vol. 26, p. 417 22- For example, see the remarks of one of the Friday Prayer leaders: “Take cyber warfare seriously. Go to war with a satirical, scientific, or literary blog, or by hacking, with any means you can. Whatever it is, it is war now. The issue of our war in cyberspace has reached the point where everyone who can, resorts to any means they can. Know this for certain: just as in war, actions contrary to religious law sometimes become permissible, in cyber warfare, actions contrary to religious law also become permissible. That is, the current situation is such that you strike with whatever you have at hand. Do not consider any side, because if you do not strike, the enemy will strike you.” (30/4/89) Does this view not necessitate that: First: Since this war is not limited to cyberspace and encompasses all social, political, and cultural arenas, then in all domains, methods contrary to religious law can be used against opponents? Second: Since the proponent of this view is just and religiously observant and is present on this battlefield, then, according to his duty, to discredit those he considers enemies, he uses methods contrary to religious law even in Friday Prayer sermons?

Source: The official website of Mohammad Soroush Mahallati