Question:

Does the scholar Al-Khumaini forbid talking behind the backs of non-believers?

Answer:

Ruhullah Al-Khumaini writes: “It is obviously the case that the prohibition from gossiping is specifically towards believing people (Mu’min) and that gossiping about the non-Shia (Mukhalif) is permitted unless one had to fear for his own life (taqiyyah) or something else besides that which would make it necessary to refrain from gossiping, but this judgment does not arise from the conclusion, reached by the traditional scholar Al-Bahrani, namely that they are disbelievers (kafir) and associates (mushrik),whereby he got carried away to go by the literal reading of the traditions – and we have already dealt with him in an clarifying treatise in the Book of Purity regarding the view that the non-Shiite (mukhalif) is impure and expressed that Islam consists of nothing but the creed, that none is worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God and mentioned the view of the numerous traditions, proving that they are disbelievers (kafir) or associates (mushrik) – but it resulted from the lack of proof prohibiting gossiping about them. As for the two previous verses, this is because the judgment in both of them refers to believing people (Mu’min) and the address is to them, and the assumption, that the distinction between faith (Iman) and Islam merely appeared as a modern concept at the time of the Imams (a.) and it did not exist at the time of the revelation of the verse,is to be rejected in the strongest possible way: First, because the Imams (a.) do not say what God and His Messenger (s.) have not said – as it is also established in the foundations of the school of jurisprudence and proven by the traditions, whereby faith (Iman) according to God and His Messenger (s. ) cannot be anything other than what it is according to the Imams (a.) – and secondly, since faith (Iman) was an expression of approval towards God and His Messenger (s.) even before the appointment of the Messenger (s.) of Ali (a.) as leader and before his appointment or before his death, there may not have been an opportunity to impose it on people – faith (Iman) being one of the fundamentals related to the belief of it – due to its lack of thematization, but after his appointment or after his death, the leadership and office of the Imam became one of its fundamentals and from that the verse declared “Only the believers are brothers.” (49:10)those to brothers, who are actually believers (Mu’min), from which it follows that during the lifetime of the Messenger (s.) a person who did not simulate it was a believer in the truest sense of the word by virtue of his faith (Iman) in God and His Messenger (s.), and one was likewise thereafter a believer on account of the leadership and commitment to it in the truest sense of the word, and so the address “O you who believe.” (49:12) is addressed to those who are believers in the truest sense of the word – even if their foundations differed in time, without the address being addressed to those who succeed Ali (a.) until the time of their departure in the beginning – in particular, Since with the believer (Mu’min) is meant the follower of the twelve Imams (a.).  and as for the traditions that addressed a believing person, it is the same case and those traditions that addressed the brother did not include others, since there is no brotherhood between us and them after it became obligatory to disassociate from them and their school of jurisprudence and their own Imams, as proven by the traditions and as necessitated by the principles of our school of jurisprudence and those traditions that addressed a Muslim person,are mostly of this type and are obviously about a believing person, such as the narration of Sulaiman Ibn Khalid by Muhammad Al-Baqir (a.), in which the Prophet (s. ) said: “The believer is the one, from whom the believers remained protected in terms of their own self and belongings, and the Muslim is the one, from whose hand and tongue the Muslims were protected, and the emigrant is the one, who emigrated from misdeeds and refrained from what God declared forbidden, and the believer is forbidden (Haram) from doing wrong to the believer, or abandoning him, or gossiping about him, or putting him to the knife.” As well as the narration of Al-Harth Ibn Al-Mughirah in which Ja’far As-Sadiq (a.) said: “The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim. He is his eye and his mirror and his guide. Neither does he betray him nor does he deceive him nor does he wrong him nor does he accuse him of falsehood nor does he gossip about him.” As well as the narration of Abu Dharr in which the Prophet (s.) said in a bequest to him: “O Abu Dharr, to revile the Muslim is sin (Fisq) and to fight him is disbelief (Kufr) and eating his flesh is among the disobediences to God and his belongings and goods are forbidden (Haram) as the shedding of his blood is forbidden.” Abu Dharr asked: “O Messenger of God, what is meant by gossiping?” The Prophet (s.) replied: “Mentioning about your brother that which he dislikes.” So it is feasible to say that narrations like that of Abdullah ibn Sinan, in which Ja’far As-Sadiq (a.) said: “The gossiping consists of saying about your brother that which God has covered up for him.” As well as others besides them, who brought up the gossiping in more detail, are used to judge all other traditions and consequently the brotherhood is addressed in it in the form of an explanation and so those besides us are not our brothers even if they are Muslims and these traditions are used to explain regarding the Muslim person which has been referred to in the rest of them and it consists of the fact that gossiping is explicitly forbidden against the Muslim, which has brotherhood with the other, which is related to Islam regarding the right faith and from this comes the treatise on the forbidden traditions and others besides these and if one takes a close look at the traditions from a factual perspective, then there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the judgement that it is forbidden (Haram) to gossip against them is not provable.There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that it is obvious from the entirety of the traditions that an explicit reference is made to the believer (Mu’min) who confesses to the rightful Imams (a.), adding that – even if one were to follow a general expression of some traditions and not judge by the narrations, which create a place for restriction – there is not a single doubt about their non guaranteed unsacredness and it even belongs to the prerequisite of our school of law, as the expert who gave the opinion said. Much more, the one who scrutinizes the numerous traditions in different sections will have no doubt that it is permissible to expose them and mock them.and even the infallible Imams (a.) were increasingly going on the offensive and their cursing and mentioning their bad sides, as in the narration of Abu Hamzah, in which he narrated to Muhammad Al-Baqir (a.): “Some of our companions are accusing and blaming the one who deviated from them.” He said: “Leaving them alone is more beautiful.” Then he said: “O Abu Hamzah, all people are children of immoral women except our followers.” Consequently it is clearly allowed to accuse and blame them, even though, however, it is better and nicer to leave them alone,but it turns out to be difficult apart from some occasions, , whereby it is part of the lively custom and practice to gossip about them and on this, the most appropriate thing is what was brought up by the good expert  and author of the work Al-Jawahir who gave the opinion: “To prolong the treatise on this subject, as they used to do in the work Al-Hada’iq, is a waste of time with definite facts.” [Al-Makasib-ul-Muharramah, Volume 1 page 376 – 380]

قال روح الله الخميني: ثم إن الظاهر اختصاص الحرمة بغيبة المؤمن فيجوز اغتياب المخالف إلا أن تقتضي التقية أو غيرها لزوم الكف عنها، وذلك لا لما أصر عليه المحدث البحراني بأنهم كفار ومشركون اغترارا بظواهر الأخبار وقد استقصينا البحث معه في كتاب الطهارة عند القول بنجاسة المخالف وقلنا: إن الاسلام ليس إلا الشهادة بأن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وذكرنا الوجه في الأخبار الكثيرة الدالة على أنهم كفار أو مشركون، بل لقصور أدلة حرمة الغيبة عن اثباتها بالنسبة إليهم، أما مثل الآيتين المتقدمتين فلأن الحكم فيهما معلق على المؤمنين والخطاب متوجه إليهم. وتوهم أن اختلاف الايمان والإسلام اصطلاح حادث في عصر الأئمة عليهم السلام دون زمان نزول الآية الكريمة: فاسد جدا. أما أولا فلأن الأئمة لا يقولون بما لا يقول به الله تعالى ورسوله صلى الله عليه وآله كما هو من أصول المذهب، وتدل عليه الروايات فلا يكون الايمان عند الله ورسوله صلى الله عليه وآله غير ما عند الأئمة صلى الله عليهم وأما ثانيا فلأن الايمان كان قبل نصب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله عليا عليه السلام للولاية عبارة عن التصديق بالله ورسوله، ولم يكن قبل نصبه أو قبل وفاته على احتمال مورد لتكليف الناس ومن الأركان المتوقف على الاعتقاد بها الايمان، لعدم الموضوع له، وإما بعد نصبه أو بعد وفاته صلى الله عليه وآله صارت الولاية والإمامة من أركانه، فقوله تعالى: إنما المؤمنون إخوة هو جعل الأخوة بين المؤمنين الواقعيين غاية الأمر أن في زمان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله كان غير المنافق مؤمنا واقعا لايمانه بالله ورسوله صلى الله عليه وآله، وبعد ذلك كان المؤمن الواقعي من قبل الولاية وصدقها أيضا، فيكون خطاب يا أيها المؤمنون متوجها إلى المؤمنين الواقعيين وإن اختلفت أركانه بحسب الأزمان، من غير أن يكون الخطاب من أول الأمر متوجها إلى الشيعة حتى يستبعد، سيما إذا كان المراد بالمؤمن الشيعة الإمامية الاثني عشرية. وأما الأخبار فما اشتملت على المؤمن فكذلك، وما اشتملت على الأخ لا تشملهم أيضا لعدم الأخوة بيننا وبينهم بعد وجوب البراءة عنهم وعن مذهبهم وعن أئمتهم، كما تدل عليه الأخبار واقتضته أصول المذهب، وما اشتملت على المسلم فالغالب منها مشتمل على ما يوجبه ظاهرا في المؤمن، كرواية سليمان بن خالد عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله المؤمن من أئتمنه المؤمنون على أنفسهم وأموالهم والمسلم من سلم المسلمون من يده ولسانه والمهاجر من هجر السيئات وترك ما حرم الله، والمؤمن حرام على المؤمن أن يظلمه أو يخذله أو يغتابه أو يدفعه دفعة. ورواية الحرث بن المغيرة قال: قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: المسلم أخو المسلم هو عينه ومرآته ودليله، لا يخونه ولا يخدعه ولا يظلمه ولا يكذبه ولا يغتابه. ورواية أبي ذر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله في وصيته له وفيها قال: يا أبا ذر سباب المسلم فسوق، و قتاله كفر، وأكل لحمه من معاصي الله، وحرمة ماله كحرمة دمه قلت: يا رسول الله وما الغيبة قال: ذكرك أخاك بما يكره. ويمكن أن يقال: إن هذه الرواية كرواية عبد الله بن سنان قال: قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: الغيبة أن تقول في أخيك ما قد ستره الله عليه، وغيرهما مما فسرت الغيبة حاكمة على سائر الروايات، فإنها في مقام تفسيرها اعتبرت الأخوة فيها، فغيرنا ليسوا بإخواننا وإن كانوا مسلمين فتكون تلك الروايات مفسرة للمسلم المأخوذ في سايرها، بأن حرمة الغيبة مخصوصة بمسلم له أخوة اسلامية ايمانية مع الآخر، ومنه يظهر الكلام في رواية المناهي وغيرها. والانصاف أن الناظر في الروايات لا ينبغي أن يرتاب في قصورها عن اثبات حرمة غيبتهم، بل لا ينبغي أن يرتاب في أن الظاهر من مجموعها اختصاصها بغيبة المؤمن الموالي لأئمة الحق صلى الله عليهم مضافا إلى أنه لو سلم اطلاق بعضها وغض النظر عن تحكيم الروايات التي في مقام التحديد عليها فلا شبهة في عدم احترامهم بل هو من ضروري المذهب كما قال المحققون، بل الناظر في الأخبار الكثيرة في الأبواب المتفرقة لا يرتاب في جواز هتكهم والوقيعة فيهم، بل الأئمة المعصومون، أكثروا في الطعن واللعن عليهم وذكر مسائيهم فعن أبي حمزة عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: قلت له: إن بعض أصحابنا يفترون ويقذفون من خالفهم فقال الكف عنهم أجمل ثم قال يا با حمزة إن الناس كلهم أولاد بغاة ما خلا شيعتنا والظاهر منها جواز الافتراء والقذف عليهم لكن الكف أحسن وأجمل لكنه مشكل إلا في بعض الأحيان، مع أن السيرة أيضا قائمة على غيبتهم فنعم ما قال المحقق صاحب الجواهر إن طول الكلام في ذلك كما فعله في الحدائق من تضييع العمر في الواضحات