Hadith Qudsi :
On the authority of Jundub (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) related:
A man said: By Allah, Allah will not forgive So-and-so. At this Allah the Almighty said: Who is he who swears by Me that I will not forgive So-and-so? Verily I have forgiven So-and-so and have nullified your [own good] deeds (1) (or as he said [it]).
(1) A similar Hadith, which is given by Abu Dawud, indicates that the person referred to was a goldly man whose previous good deeds were brought to nought through presuming to declare that Allah would not forgive someone's bad deeds.
It was related by Muslim.
NINDA
Ninda - Saloko Moto
Ninda - Backbiting and slander is the worst sin in our Tariqah. The following are verses from Saloko Moto which allude to this.
satgur kahere: nee(n)daa sareekho paap to koi nahee
jenne luttyaa aalam sa(n)saar
sat pa(n)thee nee je nee(n)daa kartaa
tene habheeyaa dojak na raakhe jaann re.........72
The True Guide says: There is no sin in comparison to backbiting and slander. It(the sin) has plunderd and robbed the entire world. Whoever backbites and slanders the follower of the True Faith, even the bottomless hell will not accomodate this person.
satgur kahere: das aasmaan ame joyaa
ane joyaa sarave sa(n)saar
sahu maa(n)he ame joyaa
to nee(n)daa nee bahu chhe pukaar re............83
The True Guide says: We have seen the ten heavens and have seen the entire world. In all of the above we have seen(visited). The regrets and tribulations that incur upon the backbiters and slanderers are not to be found anywhere seen by us.
satgur kahere: satpa(n)th sareekho koi nahee
jenee nar paase chhe saakh
te satpa(n)th pujyaanu(n) dharam sarve jaase
je nee(n)daa su raakhe vevaar re................84
The True Guide says: There is nothing like (more exalted than) the True Path, for the ones who have the Link with the Imaam. The religious benefits due to worshipping and following the True Path will vanish in entirety if one indulges in backbiting and slander.
satgur kahere: nee(n)daa dharam-j jaase
ane nee(n)daa-e jaase vevaar
nee(n)daa-e sarag-j jaase
ane nee(n)daa-e jaase deedaar re................85
The True Guide says: Due to backbiting and slander the entire religion will go. And due to backbiting and slander all relationships will go. Due to backbiting and slander the entire heavens will vanish and due to backbiting and slander the Spiritual Vision and Light will go.
satgur kahere: japtap utam tthaam nu
te ekaa(n)te besee keejee-e kaam
pann jo nee(n)daa karsho paarkee
to vannsashe dharam naa kaam...................112
The True Guide says: Meditation, worship and abstinence (from evil) are the practises of the exalted abode(Jamat Khana). Therein sit with oneness of mind and perform the (exalted) work. But if you engage yourselves in backbiting and slandering others, then all the (benefits of )religious work will perish.
satgur kahere: sarevaa keeje satpanthnee
ane ne gurgatsu dheeaa-e
pann nee(n)daa man nav raakhee-e aapannu
jethee dharma sarve jaay re....................148
The True Guide says: Serve and worship the True Path and adore the presence of the Guide and the congregation, i.e, Jamatkhana. But do not occupy your mind with backbiting and slander, due to which the entire benefits of religion will be wiped out.
satgur kahere: nee(n)daa sareekho paap to koi nahee
jenne luttyaa aalam sa(n)saar
sat pa(n)thee nee je nee(n)daa kartaa
tene habheeyaa dojak na raakhe jaann re.........72
The True Guide says: There is no sin in comparison to backbiting and slander. It(the sin) has plunderd and robbed the entire world. Whoever backbites and slanders the follower of the True Faith, even the bottomless hell will not accomodate this person.
satgur kahere: das aasmaan ame joyaa
ane joyaa sarave sa(n)saar
sahu maa(n)he ame joyaa
to nee(n)daa nee bahu chhe pukaar re............83
The True Guide says: We have seen the ten heavens and have seen the entire world. In all of the above we have seen(visited). The regrets and tribulations that incur upon the backbiters and slanderers are not to be found anywhere seen by us.
satgur kahere: satpa(n)th sareekho koi nahee
jenee nar paase chhe saakh
te satpa(n)th pujyaanu(n) dharam sarve jaase
je nee(n)daa su raakhe vevaar re................84
The True Guide says: There is nothing like (more exalted than) the True Path, for the ones who have the Link with the Imaam. The religious benefits due to worshipping and following the True Path will vanish in entirety if one indulges in backbiting and slander.
satgur kahere: nee(n)daa dharam-j jaase
ane nee(n)daa-e jaase vevaar
nee(n)daa-e sarag-j jaase
ane nee(n)daa-e jaase deedaar re................85
The True Guide says: Due to backbiting and slander the entire religion will go. And due to backbiting and slander all relationships will go. Due to backbiting and slander the entire heavens will vanish and due to backbiting and slander the Spiritual Vision and Light will go.
satgur kahere: japtap utam tthaam nu
te ekaa(n)te besee keejee-e kaam
pann jo nee(n)daa karsho paarkee
to vannsashe dharam naa kaam...................112
The True Guide says: Meditation, worship and abstinence (from evil) are the practises of the exalted abode(Jamat Khana). Therein sit with oneness of mind and perform the (exalted) work. But if you engage yourselves in backbiting and slandering others, then all the (benefits of )religious work will perish.
satgur kahere: sarevaa keeje satpanthnee
ane ne gurgatsu dheeaa-e
pann nee(n)daa man nav raakhee-e aapannu
jethee dharma sarve jaay re....................148
The True Guide says: Serve and worship the True Path and adore the presence of the Guide and the congregation, i.e, Jamatkhana. But do not occupy your mind with backbiting and slander, due to which the entire benefits of religion will be wiped out.
The following are the verses from Saloko Nano which allude to the five Hathyaas. The five Hathyaas mentioned are Par Ninda(slander), aall(false accusation), par gavan(illicit intercourse), aap hathyaa(suicide) and baall(abortion). What is important to note is that they are indeed grave!nagib wrote:There are 5 things that God does not forgive. It would be nice to find the exact versed of the ginan but here they are...
Aap Hathiya [Suicide]
Bar Hathiya [Abortion]
Per Hathiya [Murder]
Per Ninda [Slander]
Mawitra no doukh [suffering of parents]
satgur kahere: karam to sarave utare
ane na utare par nee(n)daa ne aall
par gavan na utare
na utare aap hatyaa ne baall re.................39
The True Guide says: The entire burden of sins is reducible, except the sin of backbiting and false accusation, illicit(sexual) relationships and sin of suicide and killing of children (abortion).
satgur kahere: paa(n)ch hatyaa to paapnnee
jeen seer lakhee lelaatt aa-e
te neet utthee gatmaa(n)he jaae
to-e jeev amar na thaay re......................40
The True Guide says: The five killers(of the soul) are sinful. Upon whoever's head these are written, will receive kicks. Even if this person gets up everyday and goes to the gat(J.K.), his soul will not attain immortality.
Farman on Ninda
The following is a Farman that relates to backbiting.
Regardless of how strong the iman maybe of a believer, if he imposes suffering upon a momin, then it is the same as imposing suffering on the Imam. The pain of the suffering imposed upon a momin hurts us like a spear going through our body. The pure momins are very near and dear to us. If anyone imposes suffering upon such momins then it is the same as imposing suffering upon us. If you have back-bited someone, then you must immediately go in his presence and admit your sin against him. You must repent for your sins and request his forgiveness. Such is the characteristic of a momin. By repenting in this manner, he will surely forgive you.(Nairobi, Oct 6, 1905)
Regardless of how strong the iman maybe of a believer, if he imposes suffering upon a momin, then it is the same as imposing suffering on the Imam. The pain of the suffering imposed upon a momin hurts us like a spear going through our body. The pure momins are very near and dear to us. If anyone imposes suffering upon such momins then it is the same as imposing suffering upon us. If you have back-bited someone, then you must immediately go in his presence and admit your sin against him. You must repent for your sins and request his forgiveness. Such is the characteristic of a momin. By repenting in this manner, he will surely forgive you.(Nairobi, Oct 6, 1905)
Rumi and Backbiting
According to Mowlana Rumi, backbiting and slander is equivalent to eating someone's flesh. I have been told that it is also mentioned in the Ginans but I do not know the exact reference. If anyone knows, please let me know. In the following verses of Mowlana Rumi taken from Mathnavi (3: 105-110) the elephant is the Lord and its children are the devotees.
The elephant takes a sniff at every mouth and keeps poking round the belly of every man, to see where she will find the roasted flesh of her young, so that she may manifest her vengeance and strength. You eat the flesh of God's servants: you backbite them, you will suffer retribution.
The elephant takes a sniff at every mouth and keeps poking round the belly of every man, to see where she will find the roasted flesh of her young, so that she may manifest her vengeance and strength. You eat the flesh of God's servants: you backbite them, you will suffer retribution.
Ninda and Our Perception of the Universe
eji par ni(n)daa bhaai jagat khuaaree jee
seer paa(n)u narge paddee-e jee...............................7
O momin! slandering others causes the ruin of the universe and from head to feet the person degenerates to hell.
The above verse from the Ginan "Dur desh thi aayo vannajaaro" gives a different spin on this subject and reinforces the notion that our universe is our perception of it. Slander influences the way individuals are perceived by others and causes disharmony and conflict in societies.
Mowlana Rumi in his Masnavi says that if you want to be surrounded by snakes, you will see a snake in everyone. On the other hand, if you want to be surrouned by angels, you will see an angelic aspect or an attribute of Allah in everyone.
seer paa(n)u narge paddee-e jee...............................7
O momin! slandering others causes the ruin of the universe and from head to feet the person degenerates to hell.
The above verse from the Ginan "Dur desh thi aayo vannajaaro" gives a different spin on this subject and reinforces the notion that our universe is our perception of it. Slander influences the way individuals are perceived by others and causes disharmony and conflict in societies.
Mowlana Rumi in his Masnavi says that if you want to be surrounded by snakes, you will see a snake in everyone. On the other hand, if you want to be surrouned by angels, you will see an angelic aspect or an attribute of Allah in everyone.
Wisdom From Other Traditions
Shakyamuni Buddha said, "Judge not others; judge only yourself." What appear to be faults in others may actually be reflections of our own emotional afflictions.
-Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, in Advice From A Spiritual Friend
-Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, in Advice From A Spiritual Friend
Hearing and Listening
Hearing is one of the body's five senses. But listening is an art.
-Frank Tyger
-Frank Tyger
Mind your own business
As people of Faith, we have the duty of commanding good and forbidding evil. We thus engage ourselves, as social beings, in improving ourselves and working towards being instruments in improving the world we live in. Our Faith behooves us not to search for faults in others and we would do well to heed the advice of our Beloved Prophet : "Part of being a good person is minding your own business."
While the purpose of commanding good and forbidding evil is to correct and restore; fault-finding inevitably leads to undermining the character of people and sometimes to destroying relationships. Prophet Muhammad said: "The worst of people are those engaged in slandering others, those who ruin relationships between dear ones who try to find fault with innocent people."
The Prophet also admonished us that "when you pursue the faults of others, you corrupt them" and warned that "those who unduly pursue the shortcomings of others will have their own faults exposed."
Fault-finding is the habit of the miserable
Confucius said: "the great person calls to attention the good points in others while the miserable person calls to attention the defects in others." (Analects 12:16). That is perhaps why losers can easily say, "something is wrong" and winners usually say, "how can I correct it". Why losers say, "why don't you do this?" and winners usually say, "here is something I can do."
Fault-finders normally tell others about someone's faults and rarely have the guts to face people; fitting the description of dhul-wajhayn (two-faced) which the Prophet Muhammad assigned to troublemakers and hypocrites. Fault-finders also tend to be miserable themselves, lacking self-esteem; and since they focus so much on blaming others, they become resentful; and rather than cherish people, tend to develop a desire to undermine and discredit people.
Negativity consumes a person
The negative feelings that a fault-finder harbors regarding others eventually consumes the person and this negativity eventually becomes part of the fault-finder's character. Prophet Muhammad therefore advised us "Refrain from holding bad opinions of people."
Deflecting one's own shortcomings
One of the common ways through which people deflect their own shortcomings and do not face up to their own faults is to blame others. The faults we see may well not be in what we are looking at, but rather in our looking. Prophet 'Isa/Jesus is reported to have said; "why do you look at the little speck in your brother's eye and forget the plank in your own eye". Hadrat 'Ali said: "The worst of people is the person who searches for faults in others while being blind to his own faults". Martin Luther King rightly said: "the highest form of maturity is self inquiry".
Watch your Heart, your Emotions and your Tongue
Speech is projection of thoughts and emotions; the content of speech reflects the culture of the heart, so consider carefully how you feel about others, why you feel the way you feel and what you say about people. Prophet Muhammad said: "None of your faith is correct unless your heart is upright and your heart will not be rectified until your tongue is in order". That is why Allah states in the Quran "speak what is correct, your actions will be rectified and your sins will be forgiven". Since virtually all fault-finding is conveyed verbally, we must be careful of the power of the tongue since wise people caution the fact that affliction caused by the tongue is more severe than the harm caused by the sword. The Prophet also provided a basic rule of good character when he responded to a question regarding salvation. He replied: "It is necessary for you to control your tongue and weep for your own faults".
The prayer of the Prophet is the most appropriate _expression for one who introspects and genuinely wishes to be a catalyst for a better world: "O Allah, forgive that which I did secretly and what I did publicly; What I did inadvertently and what I did deliberately; What I did knowingly and what I did out of ignorance".
Always reflect on this advice of the Prophet : "glad tidings to the person more concerned about his own faults than bothering about the faults of others".
As people of Faith, we have the duty of commanding good and forbidding evil. We thus engage ourselves, as social beings, in improving ourselves and working towards being instruments in improving the world we live in. Our Faith behooves us not to search for faults in others and we would do well to heed the advice of our Beloved Prophet : "Part of being a good person is minding your own business."
While the purpose of commanding good and forbidding evil is to correct and restore; fault-finding inevitably leads to undermining the character of people and sometimes to destroying relationships. Prophet Muhammad said: "The worst of people are those engaged in slandering others, those who ruin relationships between dear ones who try to find fault with innocent people."
The Prophet also admonished us that "when you pursue the faults of others, you corrupt them" and warned that "those who unduly pursue the shortcomings of others will have their own faults exposed."
Fault-finding is the habit of the miserable
Confucius said: "the great person calls to attention the good points in others while the miserable person calls to attention the defects in others." (Analects 12:16). That is perhaps why losers can easily say, "something is wrong" and winners usually say, "how can I correct it". Why losers say, "why don't you do this?" and winners usually say, "here is something I can do."
Fault-finders normally tell others about someone's faults and rarely have the guts to face people; fitting the description of dhul-wajhayn (two-faced) which the Prophet Muhammad assigned to troublemakers and hypocrites. Fault-finders also tend to be miserable themselves, lacking self-esteem; and since they focus so much on blaming others, they become resentful; and rather than cherish people, tend to develop a desire to undermine and discredit people.
Negativity consumes a person
The negative feelings that a fault-finder harbors regarding others eventually consumes the person and this negativity eventually becomes part of the fault-finder's character. Prophet Muhammad therefore advised us "Refrain from holding bad opinions of people."
Deflecting one's own shortcomings
One of the common ways through which people deflect their own shortcomings and do not face up to their own faults is to blame others. The faults we see may well not be in what we are looking at, but rather in our looking. Prophet 'Isa/Jesus is reported to have said; "why do you look at the little speck in your brother's eye and forget the plank in your own eye". Hadrat 'Ali said: "The worst of people is the person who searches for faults in others while being blind to his own faults". Martin Luther King rightly said: "the highest form of maturity is self inquiry".
Watch your Heart, your Emotions and your Tongue
Speech is projection of thoughts and emotions; the content of speech reflects the culture of the heart, so consider carefully how you feel about others, why you feel the way you feel and what you say about people. Prophet Muhammad said: "None of your faith is correct unless your heart is upright and your heart will not be rectified until your tongue is in order". That is why Allah states in the Quran "speak what is correct, your actions will be rectified and your sins will be forgiven". Since virtually all fault-finding is conveyed verbally, we must be careful of the power of the tongue since wise people caution the fact that affliction caused by the tongue is more severe than the harm caused by the sword. The Prophet also provided a basic rule of good character when he responded to a question regarding salvation. He replied: "It is necessary for you to control your tongue and weep for your own faults".
The prayer of the Prophet is the most appropriate _expression for one who introspects and genuinely wishes to be a catalyst for a better world: "O Allah, forgive that which I did secretly and what I did publicly; What I did inadvertently and what I did deliberately; What I did knowingly and what I did out of ignorance".
Always reflect on this advice of the Prophet : "glad tidings to the person more concerned about his own faults than bothering about the faults of others".
The following poem composed by Yunus Emre, a Turkish poet contemporary of Mawlana Rumi, emphasises the importance of correct speech. A word can destroy the world as well as create paradises.
A single word can brighten the face
By Yunus Emre
(1238 - 1320)
English version by Kabir Helminski & Refik Algan
A single word can brighten the face
of one who knows the value of words.
Ripened in silence, a single word
acquires a great energy for work.
War is cut short by a word,
and a word heals the wounds,
and there's a word that changes
poison into butter and honey.
Let a word mature inside yourself.
Withhold the unripened thought.
Come and understand the kind of word
that reduces money and riches to dust.
Know when to speak a word
and when not to speak at all.
A single word turns the universe of hell
into eight paradises.
Follow the Way. Don't be fooled
by what you already know. Be watchful.
Reflect before you speak.
A foolish mouth can brand your soul.
Yunus, say one last hing
about the power of words --
Only the word "I"
divides me from God.
A single word can brighten the face
By Yunus Emre
(1238 - 1320)
English version by Kabir Helminski & Refik Algan
A single word can brighten the face
of one who knows the value of words.
Ripened in silence, a single word
acquires a great energy for work.
War is cut short by a word,
and a word heals the wounds,
and there's a word that changes
poison into butter and honey.
Let a word mature inside yourself.
Withhold the unripened thought.
Come and understand the kind of word
that reduces money and riches to dust.
Know when to speak a word
and when not to speak at all.
A single word turns the universe of hell
into eight paradises.
Follow the Way. Don't be fooled
by what you already know. Be watchful.
Reflect before you speak.
A foolish mouth can brand your soul.
Yunus, say one last hing
about the power of words --
Only the word "I"
divides me from God.
How Often Do You Gossip?
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
-Buddha
From "A Book of Life: Embracing Judaism as a Spiritual Practice" by Michael Strassfeld:
[In the Jewish tradition, the] term for gossip and slander is lashon ha-ra, literally, 'an evil tongue.' The rabbis prohibited gossip based on their interpretation of Leviticus 19:16, 'You shall not be a tale-bearer among your people.' Their prohibition against lashon ha-ra included not only slanderous falsehoods but also gossip even when it is true. They understood the deleterious effect that gossip can have on a community.
R. Samuel bar Nahman said: Why is the evil tongue called a thrice-slaying tongue? Because it slays three persons: the person speaking, the person spoken to, and the person spoken of. [Talmud, Arakhin 15b]
In this triangle all the parts are connected in a destructive way. Of course, the gossiper is guilty, but also the one who listens to gossip is a willing and a necessary accomplice. The victim may never become aware of the gossip. Yet his or her place in the community can be affected. Profound changes may take place, but gossip is a secret crime and it is very hard to repair its damaging effects. The victim is often unable to defend him- or herself. Gossip spreads, so even confronting the originator of the gossip may not undo the damage. Once pronounced, gossip has a momentum that is difficult to stop....
Reflect for a moment how often you speak badly of other people. Lashon ha-ra is so much a part of our daily conversation that it seems harmless. Sometimes we speak ill of whole groups of people — a race, a social class, or a profession. Other times it is more personal — we may speak ill of people in our workplace or among our circle of acquaintances. It sometimes seems that society itself revels in gossip. Certainly magazines and talk shows specialize in it. I was struck by the negative effect of talk shows a number of years ago when I was on an all-night radio call-in program. The host spent the night confirming, feeding, and expanding upon his callers' worst opinions by telling them that not only was their specific story 'true,' but their experience reflected a larger 'truth.' Thus, all politicians were corrupt; all lawyers were only after our money, etc....
Gossip is also a way of creating and defining social groups. This is often done out of a sense of insecurity. Afraid of being an outsider, we gather others around us by portraying someone else as an outsider. By gossiping or criticizing others, we enter into a secret alliance with those who will listen....
Gossip is prevalent and destructive, yet it seems only realistic to accept it as common practice, like taking sweeteners from restaurants, overeating, or driving just above the speed limit. But imagine for a moment how different the world would be if gossip were to disappear! A gossip-free workplace, for instance, would be spiritually healthy just as a smoke-free workplace is physically healthy. As human beings, created in the image of the Divine, we are ultimately more alike than unalike. Gossip only serves to sidetrack us from confronting both our own goodness and our own flaws.
The challenge is great, but it is easy to get started. Just ask yourself the question, 'Is this information I am about to pass on really necessary?' This will usually remove you from the role of gossiper. As for being an accomplice, if people begin to get a sense that you don't enjoy hearing gossip, they will share it with you less frequently. If you seem uninterested in gossip, people soon take the point."
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
-Buddha
From "A Book of Life: Embracing Judaism as a Spiritual Practice" by Michael Strassfeld:
[In the Jewish tradition, the] term for gossip and slander is lashon ha-ra, literally, 'an evil tongue.' The rabbis prohibited gossip based on their interpretation of Leviticus 19:16, 'You shall not be a tale-bearer among your people.' Their prohibition against lashon ha-ra included not only slanderous falsehoods but also gossip even when it is true. They understood the deleterious effect that gossip can have on a community.
R. Samuel bar Nahman said: Why is the evil tongue called a thrice-slaying tongue? Because it slays three persons: the person speaking, the person spoken to, and the person spoken of. [Talmud, Arakhin 15b]
In this triangle all the parts are connected in a destructive way. Of course, the gossiper is guilty, but also the one who listens to gossip is a willing and a necessary accomplice. The victim may never become aware of the gossip. Yet his or her place in the community can be affected. Profound changes may take place, but gossip is a secret crime and it is very hard to repair its damaging effects. The victim is often unable to defend him- or herself. Gossip spreads, so even confronting the originator of the gossip may not undo the damage. Once pronounced, gossip has a momentum that is difficult to stop....
Reflect for a moment how often you speak badly of other people. Lashon ha-ra is so much a part of our daily conversation that it seems harmless. Sometimes we speak ill of whole groups of people — a race, a social class, or a profession. Other times it is more personal — we may speak ill of people in our workplace or among our circle of acquaintances. It sometimes seems that society itself revels in gossip. Certainly magazines and talk shows specialize in it. I was struck by the negative effect of talk shows a number of years ago when I was on an all-night radio call-in program. The host spent the night confirming, feeding, and expanding upon his callers' worst opinions by telling them that not only was their specific story 'true,' but their experience reflected a larger 'truth.' Thus, all politicians were corrupt; all lawyers were only after our money, etc....
Gossip is also a way of creating and defining social groups. This is often done out of a sense of insecurity. Afraid of being an outsider, we gather others around us by portraying someone else as an outsider. By gossiping or criticizing others, we enter into a secret alliance with those who will listen....
Gossip is prevalent and destructive, yet it seems only realistic to accept it as common practice, like taking sweeteners from restaurants, overeating, or driving just above the speed limit. But imagine for a moment how different the world would be if gossip were to disappear! A gossip-free workplace, for instance, would be spiritually healthy just as a smoke-free workplace is physically healthy. As human beings, created in the image of the Divine, we are ultimately more alike than unalike. Gossip only serves to sidetrack us from confronting both our own goodness and our own flaws.
The challenge is great, but it is easy to get started. Just ask yourself the question, 'Is this information I am about to pass on really necessary?' This will usually remove you from the role of gossiper. As for being an accomplice, if people begin to get a sense that you don't enjoy hearing gossip, they will share it with you less frequently. If you seem uninterested in gossip, people soon take the point."
"O Aly ! when someone hears the backbiting of his
Muslim brother committed in his presence, yet he does
not rally to his assistance despite being capable of
doing so, Allah shall humiliate him in the world and
in the Hereafter "(Prophet Muhammad)
Our Imam Jaf'ar as Sadiq narrated what the Prophet has
said:
"O you who have embraced Islam with your tongues but
in whose hearts faith has not yet entered, do not
disparage Muslims and do not seek their defects.
verily Allah will seek out the defects of he who is
after their defects; and one who has Allah after his
defects will be humiliated, even in his own abode"
The Holy Quran says: "Nor backbite one another; would
any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother?
you would abhor it" (Sura 49:12)
Muslim brother committed in his presence, yet he does
not rally to his assistance despite being capable of
doing so, Allah shall humiliate him in the world and
in the Hereafter "(Prophet Muhammad)
Our Imam Jaf'ar as Sadiq narrated what the Prophet has
said:
"O you who have embraced Islam with your tongues but
in whose hearts faith has not yet entered, do not
disparage Muslims and do not seek their defects.
verily Allah will seek out the defects of he who is
after their defects; and one who has Allah after his
defects will be humiliated, even in his own abode"
The Holy Quran says: "Nor backbite one another; would
any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother?
you would abhor it" (Sura 49:12)
As we celebrate Idd- el Hajj and New Years day, I would like to greet you IDD MUBARAK with the following important message for reflection.
Do not scandalize an innocent!
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Whoever accuses anyone with something not found in him, in order to scandalize him, Allah will imprison him in the Hell fire, until he brings a solid evidence of what he claimed." (Collected by At-Tabarani)
Often times, it is observed in our Muslim community that people accuse others, just for the sake of increasing themselves in honour or worldly respect. A lot of false accusations are made simply to degrade a person of a different colour, ethnic or economic background. In addition, it is disgusting to see, sometimes apparently very practicing Muslims, specially the youth, bad-mouthing the brothers and sisters who are probably not very Islamically practicing yet, or those who belong to different Islamic organizations, ideologies or mosques. Let us not forget that, in this Hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) has used very severe words against those who falsely accuse others for no reason. May Allah cure all of these ills from our Ummah.
Compiled From:
"Selected Traditions of Prophet Muhammad" - Shk. Al-Amin bin Al-Mazauri
Do not scandalize an innocent!
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Whoever accuses anyone with something not found in him, in order to scandalize him, Allah will imprison him in the Hell fire, until he brings a solid evidence of what he claimed." (Collected by At-Tabarani)
Often times, it is observed in our Muslim community that people accuse others, just for the sake of increasing themselves in honour or worldly respect. A lot of false accusations are made simply to degrade a person of a different colour, ethnic or economic background. In addition, it is disgusting to see, sometimes apparently very practicing Muslims, specially the youth, bad-mouthing the brothers and sisters who are probably not very Islamically practicing yet, or those who belong to different Islamic organizations, ideologies or mosques. Let us not forget that, in this Hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) has used very severe words against those who falsely accuse others for no reason. May Allah cure all of these ills from our Ummah.
Compiled From:
"Selected Traditions of Prophet Muhammad" - Shk. Al-Amin bin Al-Mazauri
"Backbiting and slander"
Wonderful Saying of Mola Ali (AS)
[shiaofahlulbayt]
Backbiting is a springtime pasture for the ignoble.
* * * * * * * * *
The one who listens to backbiting is one of the backbiters.
* * * * * * * * *
Backbiting is the endeavour of the incapable.
* * * * * * * * *
Backbiting is finding fault in secret.
* * * * * * * * *
Whoever is aware of his own faults will have no time for the faults of
others.
* * * * * * * * *
How fortunate is the one whose concern for his own faults keeps him from
noting the faults of other people.
* * * * * * * * *
O slave of Allah, do not be quick to find fault with the wrong action of
anyone
for perhaps he may have been forgiven;
and do not feel at ease with your self even if it is only slightly
disobedient
for perhaps you may be punished for it.
So may whoever of you who knows about others' faults be restrained by what
he knows about his own faults,
and may he be concerned only with his own gratitude for being spared from
what troubles others.
Wonderful Saying of Mola Ali (AS)
[shiaofahlulbayt]
Backbiting is a springtime pasture for the ignoble.
* * * * * * * * *
The one who listens to backbiting is one of the backbiters.
* * * * * * * * *
Backbiting is the endeavour of the incapable.
* * * * * * * * *
Backbiting is finding fault in secret.
* * * * * * * * *
Whoever is aware of his own faults will have no time for the faults of
others.
* * * * * * * * *
How fortunate is the one whose concern for his own faults keeps him from
noting the faults of other people.
* * * * * * * * *
O slave of Allah, do not be quick to find fault with the wrong action of
anyone
for perhaps he may have been forgiven;
and do not feel at ease with your self even if it is only slightly
disobedient
for perhaps you may be punished for it.
So may whoever of you who knows about others' faults be restrained by what
he knows about his own faults,
and may he be concerned only with his own gratitude for being spared from
what troubles others.
Well...I am talking in a media sense.
Like here in Pakistan,
those who watch cricket must be knowing about Shoaib Akhtar's recent incident in South Africa.
So after all this, the cricket writer on the cricket site wrote an article and then asked for people's comments.
Now ofcourse he has criticized Shoaib in that article and asking for comments, I wanted to post but then I was stopped with a question in my mind
Is it a form of Ninda?
Because Shoaib is not present and may avoid reading such articles.
And
In our country's politics, we keep criticizing the work of our government and our President, not being a President but ruling as a military dictator so ofcourse there are many news channel currently criticizing him for his re-election and all.. (he's getting re-elected with the changing...) so if someone in frnds or somewhere in a discussion...talking bout him and saying like 'O man this person is corrupted and ridiculous...thinking Laws and Constitution his mistress' etc.. Is it Ninda too ?
Thank You.
Like here in Pakistan,
those who watch cricket must be knowing about Shoaib Akhtar's recent incident in South Africa.
So after all this, the cricket writer on the cricket site wrote an article and then asked for people's comments.
Now ofcourse he has criticized Shoaib in that article and asking for comments, I wanted to post but then I was stopped with a question in my mind
Is it a form of Ninda?
Because Shoaib is not present and may avoid reading such articles.
And
In our country's politics, we keep criticizing the work of our government and our President, not being a President but ruling as a military dictator so ofcourse there are many news channel currently criticizing him for his re-election and all.. (he's getting re-elected with the changing...) so if someone in frnds or somewhere in a discussion...talking bout him and saying like 'O man this person is corrupted and ridiculous...thinking Laws and Constitution his mistress' etc.. Is it Ninda too ?
Thank You.
It's the expression of our unhappiness with their actions.
Just like as I am a very big fan of that cricket player but when he did that I was so angry that once again he could not control his anger.
And same with President Musharraf
Playing with laws and constitutions
We all know that Shoaib will never change even if we say to him and President Musharraf is doing whatever he wants to do despite so much hatred growing for him among people..
waiting for your reply kmeherali ?
Just like as I am a very big fan of that cricket player but when he did that I was so angry that once again he could not control his anger.
And same with President Musharraf
Playing with laws and constitutions
We all know that Shoaib will never change even if we say to him and President Musharraf is doing whatever he wants to do despite so much hatred growing for him among people..
waiting for your reply kmeherali ?
10 Tips for Kinder Speech
By Judy Gruen
In our media-driven society, it's easy to forget the awesome power of words. Words have enormous power to hurt or to heal, to make or break reputations, to uplift or degrade another human being. In this way, the words we speak literally change the world and how we view the people in it. Here are 10 ways to improve the world and ourselves through channeling our power of speech for the good.
Click Here to View the Gallery
http://www.beliefnet.com/gallery/kinder ... ?pgIndex=0
Judy Gruen is the author of three humor books. Her latest book is "The Women's Daily Irony Supplement". Read more of her work on her website.
By Judy Gruen
In our media-driven society, it's easy to forget the awesome power of words. Words have enormous power to hurt or to heal, to make or break reputations, to uplift or degrade another human being. In this way, the words we speak literally change the world and how we view the people in it. Here are 10 ways to improve the world and ourselves through channeling our power of speech for the good.
Click Here to View the Gallery
http://www.beliefnet.com/gallery/kinder ... ?pgIndex=0
Judy Gruen is the author of three humor books. Her latest book is "The Women's Daily Irony Supplement". Read more of her work on her website.
Causes and Cures of Backbiting
What causes someone to backbite his Muslim brothers and sisters?
1. Satisfying Anger
This is done by backbiting the person who kindles his anger. So every time this person makes him angry, he subdues it by backbiting the person. Through this (the backbiting), he feels he is getting even with the other person.
The cure for this is the advice of the Messenger, peace be upon him, when a man came to him and said, “Advise me.”
The Messenger said, "Laa taqhdab (Do not become angry)!"
2. Wanting to Make or Keep Friends
In order to maintain friends with others, a person indulges in backbiting because he is afraid of losing their friendship. Thus he does not reprimand them when they backbite, but indulges in it with them.
To cure this, he must remember the saying of the Messenger: "Whoever seeks the pleasure of men by displeasing Allah, Allah will abandon him to the people" (Tirmidhi).
3. Conceit and Lack of Awareness of One's Faults
Such people should think about their own faults and try to correct themselves, and feel ashamed to criticize others when they have many faults themselves.
Uqbah Ibn Aamir narrates:
I said, "O RasulAllah! What is salvation?"
He, peace be uopn him, said, "Hold your tongue! Your house should suffice you! And cry over your (own) faults” (Tirmidhi)!
Source:
“Hold Your Tongue” - Muhammad Alshareef
What causes someone to backbite his Muslim brothers and sisters?
1. Satisfying Anger
This is done by backbiting the person who kindles his anger. So every time this person makes him angry, he subdues it by backbiting the person. Through this (the backbiting), he feels he is getting even with the other person.
The cure for this is the advice of the Messenger, peace be upon him, when a man came to him and said, “Advise me.”
The Messenger said, "Laa taqhdab (Do not become angry)!"
2. Wanting to Make or Keep Friends
In order to maintain friends with others, a person indulges in backbiting because he is afraid of losing their friendship. Thus he does not reprimand them when they backbite, but indulges in it with them.
To cure this, he must remember the saying of the Messenger: "Whoever seeks the pleasure of men by displeasing Allah, Allah will abandon him to the people" (Tirmidhi).
3. Conceit and Lack of Awareness of One's Faults
Such people should think about their own faults and try to correct themselves, and feel ashamed to criticize others when they have many faults themselves.
Uqbah Ibn Aamir narrates:
I said, "O RasulAllah! What is salvation?"
He, peace be uopn him, said, "Hold your tongue! Your house should suffice you! And cry over your (own) faults” (Tirmidhi)!
Source:
“Hold Your Tongue” - Muhammad Alshareef
November 3, 2009
Findings
Can You Believe How Mean Office Gossip Can Be?
By JOHN TIERNEY
Could adults gossiping in the office be more devious than the teenagers in “Gossip Girl”?
If you have a hard time believing this, then you must have skipped the latest issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Perhaps you saw “ethnography” and assumed it would just be quaint reports from the Amazon and the South Seas. But this time enthnographers have returned from the field with footage of a truly savage native ritual: teachers at an elementary school in the Midwest dishing about their principal behind her back.
These are rare records of “gossip episodes,” which have been the subject of a long-running theoretical debate among anthropologists and sociologists. One side, the functionalist school, sees gossip as a useful tool for enforcing social rules and maintaining group solidarity. The other school sees gossip more as a hostile endeavor by individuals selfishly trying to advance their own interests.
But both schools have spent more time theorizing than observing gossipers in their natural habitats. Until now, their flow charts of gossips’ conversations (where would social science be without flow charts?) have been largely based on studies in informal settings, like the casual conversations recorded in a German housing project and in the cafeteria of an American middle school.
The earlier studies found that once someone made a negative comment about a person who wasn’t there, the conversation would get meaner unless someone immediately defended the target. Otherwise, among both adults and teenagers, the insults would keep coming because there was so much social pressure to agree with the others.
Consider, for instance, the cascade of insults recorded in the earlier study of middle-school gossip by Donna Eder and Janet Lynne Enke of Indiana University. In this cafeteria conversation, a group of eighth-grade girls in the cafeteria were discussing an overweight classmate whose breasts they considered too large for her age:
Penny: In choir that girl was sitting in front of us and we kept going, “Moo.”
Karen: We were going, “Come here, cow; come here, cow.”
Bonnie: I know. She is one.
Penny: She looks like a big fat cow.
Julie: Who is that?
Bonnie: That girl on the basketball team.
Penny: That big red-headed cow.
Julie: Oh, yeah. I know. She is a cow.
The new study found that gossip in the workplace also tended to be overwhelmingly negative, but the insults were more subtle and the conversations less predictable, says Tim Hallett, a sociologist at Indiana University. Dr. Hallett conducted the study along with Dr. Eder and Brent Harger of Albright College.
“Office gossip can be a form of reputational warfare,” Dr. Hallett says. “It’s like informal gossip, but it’s richer and more elaborate. There are more layers to it because people practice indirectness and avoidance. People are more cautious because they know they can lose not just a friendship but a job.”
During his two years studying the group dynamics at a Midwestern elementary school, which allowed him access on condition of anonymity, Dr. Hallett found that the teachers became so comfortable with him and his camera that they would freely insult their bosses during one-on-one interviews. But at the teachers’ formal group meetings, where they knew that another teacher might report their insults to the principal, they were more discreet.
Instead of making direct criticisms, they sometimes offered obliquely sarcastic comments to test the waters. They used another indirect tactic categorized as praise the predecessor, as in the meeting when a teacher fondly recalled a previous administration: “It was so calm, and you could teach. No one was constantly looking over your shoulder.” The other teachers quickly agreed. No one explicitly called the current principal an authoritarian busybody, but that was the obvious implication.
Some teachers were especially adept at managing gossip. At one meeting, after someone complained about a student walking around with his hair shaped into horns (“Tell me, how is that part of the uniform dress code?”), the group began blaming the lapse in discipline on the assistant principal. The gossip seemed to be going down the same nasty track as the teenagers’ she’s-such-a-cow episode until another teacher, an ally of the assistant principal, smoothly intervened.
First, the teacher interrupted the attack by asking the name of the student with the horns. That deflected the group’s gossip on to the student’s academic difficulties and weird behavior (“He’s gotta frighten the little kids”). Then the teacher masterfully completed the rescue of the assistant principal by changing the topic entirely, reminding everyone of a different disciplinary issue that was the fault of a less popular administrator — the principal, who promptly became the new focus of the groups’ anger.
The teachers’ gossip never got as blatantly mean as the teenage girls’ — no one was ever called a cow — but in some ways the effects were more widely felt.
As teachers mocked the principal and complained about her being “stifling” and “hyper,” the atmosphere got more poisonous. The principal felt that her authority was being undermined by gossip and retaliated against teachers she suspected (correctly) of criticizing her. Teachers and administrators fled the school, and the students’ test scores declined.
“The gossip did serve to reinforce the teachers’ group solidarity, but in this case it was also a form of warfare that brought everyone down,” Dr. Hallett says. “It was reminiscent of the old saying that gossip is a three-pronged tongue: it can hurt the speaker and the listener, as well as the target.”
Some bosses have tried turning the office into a “no-gossip zone,” but Dr. Hallett says it is more realistic to try managing it. (If you have ideas for managing office gossip, you can suggest them at nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
If, say, an office rival seems poised to trash one of your absent allies, Dr. Hallett suggests you make a “pre-emptive positive evaluation.” A quick “Isn’t she doing a great job?” might be enough to stop the attack.
If your rival tries persisting with indirect sarcasm — “Oh, real great job” — you can force the issue by calmly asking what that means. That simple question, a dare made in a pleasant voice, often silenced the sarcastic gossips observed by Dr. Hallett.
And if that doesn’t work, Dr. Hallett suggests you try an even simpler tactic that was used successfully at the teachers’ meetings — and that is available in any workplace anytime. In fact, it’s one of the tactics that distinguishes office gossip from nonoffice gossip. When the going gets tough, when the gossip gets mean, you always have one reliable escape line: “Don’t we have some work to do here?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/scien ... nted=print
Findings
Can You Believe How Mean Office Gossip Can Be?
By JOHN TIERNEY
Could adults gossiping in the office be more devious than the teenagers in “Gossip Girl”?
If you have a hard time believing this, then you must have skipped the latest issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Perhaps you saw “ethnography” and assumed it would just be quaint reports from the Amazon and the South Seas. But this time enthnographers have returned from the field with footage of a truly savage native ritual: teachers at an elementary school in the Midwest dishing about their principal behind her back.
These are rare records of “gossip episodes,” which have been the subject of a long-running theoretical debate among anthropologists and sociologists. One side, the functionalist school, sees gossip as a useful tool for enforcing social rules and maintaining group solidarity. The other school sees gossip more as a hostile endeavor by individuals selfishly trying to advance their own interests.
But both schools have spent more time theorizing than observing gossipers in their natural habitats. Until now, their flow charts of gossips’ conversations (where would social science be without flow charts?) have been largely based on studies in informal settings, like the casual conversations recorded in a German housing project and in the cafeteria of an American middle school.
The earlier studies found that once someone made a negative comment about a person who wasn’t there, the conversation would get meaner unless someone immediately defended the target. Otherwise, among both adults and teenagers, the insults would keep coming because there was so much social pressure to agree with the others.
Consider, for instance, the cascade of insults recorded in the earlier study of middle-school gossip by Donna Eder and Janet Lynne Enke of Indiana University. In this cafeteria conversation, a group of eighth-grade girls in the cafeteria were discussing an overweight classmate whose breasts they considered too large for her age:
Penny: In choir that girl was sitting in front of us and we kept going, “Moo.”
Karen: We were going, “Come here, cow; come here, cow.”
Bonnie: I know. She is one.
Penny: She looks like a big fat cow.
Julie: Who is that?
Bonnie: That girl on the basketball team.
Penny: That big red-headed cow.
Julie: Oh, yeah. I know. She is a cow.
The new study found that gossip in the workplace also tended to be overwhelmingly negative, but the insults were more subtle and the conversations less predictable, says Tim Hallett, a sociologist at Indiana University. Dr. Hallett conducted the study along with Dr. Eder and Brent Harger of Albright College.
“Office gossip can be a form of reputational warfare,” Dr. Hallett says. “It’s like informal gossip, but it’s richer and more elaborate. There are more layers to it because people practice indirectness and avoidance. People are more cautious because they know they can lose not just a friendship but a job.”
During his two years studying the group dynamics at a Midwestern elementary school, which allowed him access on condition of anonymity, Dr. Hallett found that the teachers became so comfortable with him and his camera that they would freely insult their bosses during one-on-one interviews. But at the teachers’ formal group meetings, where they knew that another teacher might report their insults to the principal, they were more discreet.
Instead of making direct criticisms, they sometimes offered obliquely sarcastic comments to test the waters. They used another indirect tactic categorized as praise the predecessor, as in the meeting when a teacher fondly recalled a previous administration: “It was so calm, and you could teach. No one was constantly looking over your shoulder.” The other teachers quickly agreed. No one explicitly called the current principal an authoritarian busybody, but that was the obvious implication.
Some teachers were especially adept at managing gossip. At one meeting, after someone complained about a student walking around with his hair shaped into horns (“Tell me, how is that part of the uniform dress code?”), the group began blaming the lapse in discipline on the assistant principal. The gossip seemed to be going down the same nasty track as the teenagers’ she’s-such-a-cow episode until another teacher, an ally of the assistant principal, smoothly intervened.
First, the teacher interrupted the attack by asking the name of the student with the horns. That deflected the group’s gossip on to the student’s academic difficulties and weird behavior (“He’s gotta frighten the little kids”). Then the teacher masterfully completed the rescue of the assistant principal by changing the topic entirely, reminding everyone of a different disciplinary issue that was the fault of a less popular administrator — the principal, who promptly became the new focus of the groups’ anger.
The teachers’ gossip never got as blatantly mean as the teenage girls’ — no one was ever called a cow — but in some ways the effects were more widely felt.
As teachers mocked the principal and complained about her being “stifling” and “hyper,” the atmosphere got more poisonous. The principal felt that her authority was being undermined by gossip and retaliated against teachers she suspected (correctly) of criticizing her. Teachers and administrators fled the school, and the students’ test scores declined.
“The gossip did serve to reinforce the teachers’ group solidarity, but in this case it was also a form of warfare that brought everyone down,” Dr. Hallett says. “It was reminiscent of the old saying that gossip is a three-pronged tongue: it can hurt the speaker and the listener, as well as the target.”
Some bosses have tried turning the office into a “no-gossip zone,” but Dr. Hallett says it is more realistic to try managing it. (If you have ideas for managing office gossip, you can suggest them at nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
If, say, an office rival seems poised to trash one of your absent allies, Dr. Hallett suggests you make a “pre-emptive positive evaluation.” A quick “Isn’t she doing a great job?” might be enough to stop the attack.
If your rival tries persisting with indirect sarcasm — “Oh, real great job” — you can force the issue by calmly asking what that means. That simple question, a dare made in a pleasant voice, often silenced the sarcastic gossips observed by Dr. Hallett.
And if that doesn’t work, Dr. Hallett suggests you try an even simpler tactic that was used successfully at the teachers’ meetings — and that is available in any workplace anytime. In fact, it’s one of the tactics that distinguishes office gossip from nonoffice gossip. When the going gets tough, when the gossip gets mean, you always have one reliable escape line: “Don’t we have some work to do here?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/scien ... nted=print
If you're for instance a team manager and you have several employees under you, that person also has a duty to look after his employees and check their work and report back to the Project Manager if any worker is found with a lot of problems.
Now, is reporting back to your project manager is backbiting? I read that it's all about intentions and if it's going to harm anyone then it's very sinful but this 'confused' nature is really hurting that person. He thinks that he's not fulfilling his duties as a team manager and the tasks assigned to him because he also looks after the quality control of the work and there has been instances where defending the workers is backfiring him. Like those workers who are making mistakes in their work, their problems have been hidden because he defends them but what is happening that sometimes the same workers are telling the Project Manager about the conduct of team manager just because he was angry on their work and his behavior was very rude towards them. And naturally Project Manager then wacks team manager.
He's confused, he can't neither report because he thinks that it would be Ninda so just to be free of this problem and let the Project Manager handle it nor he can express his anger and confusion truly to them.
So is it truly Ninda by reporting and just being 'simple' in your work?
Now, is reporting back to your project manager is backbiting? I read that it's all about intentions and if it's going to harm anyone then it's very sinful but this 'confused' nature is really hurting that person. He thinks that he's not fulfilling his duties as a team manager and the tasks assigned to him because he also looks after the quality control of the work and there has been instances where defending the workers is backfiring him. Like those workers who are making mistakes in their work, their problems have been hidden because he defends them but what is happening that sometimes the same workers are telling the Project Manager about the conduct of team manager just because he was angry on their work and his behavior was very rude towards them. And naturally Project Manager then wacks team manager.
He's confused, he can't neither report because he thinks that it would be Ninda so just to be free of this problem and let the Project Manager handle it nor he can express his anger and confusion truly to them.
So is it truly Ninda by reporting and just being 'simple' in your work?
Sex and Grace
by Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- One of the least attractive things about Homo sapiens is their habit of creating entertainment from the suffering of others. Hangings once were public spectacles, part carnival, part moral lesson. The modern equivalent is the political sex scandal.
The latest, though by no means the worst, concerned former Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana, who admitted an affair with a staffer and resigned from office. Souder, a social conservative who supported abstinence education, was jeered for hypocrisy. There was a moment of national mirth. Then Souder packed up his office and left town. The carnival moved on.
My problem is, I know Mark Souder. Years ago, he was my first boss on Capitol Hill, when we both worked for Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana. I found Mark to be deeply religious, highly intelligent and slightly neurotic. The answer to any question was likely to be detailed, exhaustive and lengthy. When we first met, Mark was charged with giving me an overview of Indiana politics. He paused a moment, then began, "Let me start with the glaciers ... "
And Mark was decent to me. Not long after I started working there, my father died suddenly. Mark drove from Washington to Atlanta to attend the funeral. I won't forget.
Mark later became a thoughtful congressman, carving out a serious role on drug policy. He did his job with care and stubborn integrity. He was not a bright-burning political meteor, but he was the kind of man worth having in the House.
So what does sexual conduct have to do with the qualifications for public service? It is the question raised by the cases of politicians such as John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton. In practice, we make certain distinctions. There is a difference between breaking a vow out of weakness and smashing it out of malice. Sexual behavior can reveal our shared foolishness. Or it can reveal coldness, compulsion, cruelty, exploitation, arrogance and recklessness. Who can deny that these traits of character are potentially dangerous in a political leader?
But while sexual conduct is not irrelevant, it is also not everything. I have known politicians who are cold, arrogant, reckless -- and faithful to their spouses. And I have known politicians who have been unfaithful and served the public well.
Moral conservatives need to admit that political character is more complex than marital fidelity, and that less sensual vices also can be disturbing. "The sins of the flesh are bad," said C.S. Lewis, "but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
Yet moral liberals have something to learn as well. The failure of human beings to meet their own ideals does not disprove or discredit those ideals. The fact that some are cowards does not make courage a myth. The fact that some are faithless does not make fidelity a joke. All moral standards create the possibility of hypocrisy. But I would rather live among those who recognize standards and fail to meet them than among those who mock all standards as lies. In the end, hypocrisy is preferable to decadence.
What we really need is to combine high moral standards with humility. When "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was first published, the poet and priest Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote to a friend: "You are certainly wrong about Hyde being overdrawn; my Hyde is worse." In every life -- apart from saints and psychopaths -- there is a chasm between our intentions and our conduct. All human journeys are part pilgrimage, part farce. Whenever we mock moral shoddiness, laziness and frailty, we mock into a mirror.
This recognition should lead toward the most underrated of the moral virtues: mercy. Yes, people are baser than their highest ideals. They are also nobler than their worst moments. This does not make the distinction between base and noble impossible. But it makes a little grace appropriate.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelG ... ments=true
by Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- One of the least attractive things about Homo sapiens is their habit of creating entertainment from the suffering of others. Hangings once were public spectacles, part carnival, part moral lesson. The modern equivalent is the political sex scandal.
The latest, though by no means the worst, concerned former Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana, who admitted an affair with a staffer and resigned from office. Souder, a social conservative who supported abstinence education, was jeered for hypocrisy. There was a moment of national mirth. Then Souder packed up his office and left town. The carnival moved on.
My problem is, I know Mark Souder. Years ago, he was my first boss on Capitol Hill, when we both worked for Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana. I found Mark to be deeply religious, highly intelligent and slightly neurotic. The answer to any question was likely to be detailed, exhaustive and lengthy. When we first met, Mark was charged with giving me an overview of Indiana politics. He paused a moment, then began, "Let me start with the glaciers ... "
And Mark was decent to me. Not long after I started working there, my father died suddenly. Mark drove from Washington to Atlanta to attend the funeral. I won't forget.
Mark later became a thoughtful congressman, carving out a serious role on drug policy. He did his job with care and stubborn integrity. He was not a bright-burning political meteor, but he was the kind of man worth having in the House.
So what does sexual conduct have to do with the qualifications for public service? It is the question raised by the cases of politicians such as John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton. In practice, we make certain distinctions. There is a difference between breaking a vow out of weakness and smashing it out of malice. Sexual behavior can reveal our shared foolishness. Or it can reveal coldness, compulsion, cruelty, exploitation, arrogance and recklessness. Who can deny that these traits of character are potentially dangerous in a political leader?
But while sexual conduct is not irrelevant, it is also not everything. I have known politicians who are cold, arrogant, reckless -- and faithful to their spouses. And I have known politicians who have been unfaithful and served the public well.
Moral conservatives need to admit that political character is more complex than marital fidelity, and that less sensual vices also can be disturbing. "The sins of the flesh are bad," said C.S. Lewis, "but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
Yet moral liberals have something to learn as well. The failure of human beings to meet their own ideals does not disprove or discredit those ideals. The fact that some are cowards does not make courage a myth. The fact that some are faithless does not make fidelity a joke. All moral standards create the possibility of hypocrisy. But I would rather live among those who recognize standards and fail to meet them than among those who mock all standards as lies. In the end, hypocrisy is preferable to decadence.
What we really need is to combine high moral standards with humility. When "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was first published, the poet and priest Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote to a friend: "You are certainly wrong about Hyde being overdrawn; my Hyde is worse." In every life -- apart from saints and psychopaths -- there is a chasm between our intentions and our conduct. All human journeys are part pilgrimage, part farce. Whenever we mock moral shoddiness, laziness and frailty, we mock into a mirror.
This recognition should lead toward the most underrated of the moral virtues: mercy. Yes, people are baser than their highest ideals. They are also nobler than their worst moments. This does not make the distinction between base and noble impossible. But it makes a little grace appropriate.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelG ... ments=true
Catering to public voyeuristic curiosities, with little concern for the value of personal privacy, has become a way of life for some journalists around the world. The question as I see it is simply this - will our journalists write about what is truly significant for our societies? [Nairobi 1997]
-- Aga Khan IV
June 24, 2010
The Culture of Exposure
By DAVID BROOKS
The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.
So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy.
Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside.
It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night.
Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms.
Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.
Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage.
Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances.
Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.
In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.
And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.
But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.
By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.
The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.
Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.
The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opini ... ?th&emc=th
-- Aga Khan IV
June 24, 2010
The Culture of Exposure
By DAVID BROOKS
The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.
So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy.
Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside.
It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night.
Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms.
Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.
Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage.
Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances.
Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.
In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.
And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.
But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.
By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.
The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.
Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.
The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opini ... ?th&emc=th