Backbiting - Revisited

Someone, whose name is "Anonymous" (they must be a big fan because they keep posting great comments), just posted a marvelous question on an article I wrote a while ago about backbiting. You can find the article by clicking here.

The comment was as follows: If someone, because of selfish motives, secretly harms another and the harmed one tells others about the bad things the former has done to him, is this considered backbiting, or defending oneself, or seeking justice or else? What are the differences between these things?

What an awesome and thought-provoking question.

And like I have said many times in the past, if you ask me any question, I can give you an honest and truthful answer.

I don't know.

See? Honest and truthful.

What do you think, dear Reader? If someone hurts you, seemingly with intention, and then you tell someone else about it, is that backbiting? (I prefer making this sort of question personal.)

I've thought about this a lot throughout the night, puzzling and praying for understanding, and I still have a long way to go.

Looking at the question, the poser of said question puts forth a few answers, so let's look at them one at a time.

Is it backbiting? Let's get back to this, shall we?

Is it defending oneself? I suspect that it would not be defending oneself, for that is present tense, and the the question is in the past tense. If someone assaulted me last week, and I lashed out at them today, the defense of "defending myself" would not stand up in court. It may be a form a protecting oneself, but I don't think that would necessarily have to include attacking someones character, true or not.

Let's look at a true scenario here. One day, Mirza Yahya, Baha'u'llah's unfaithful brother, put some poison in His teacup. Baha'u'llah was struck gravely ill by this. He well knew who did it, and probably even knew when He drank of the cup. In fact, I am certain that He did. But He always allowed His enemies to do what they wanted with Him, and so He drank. Ok. that aside for a moment, let's look at what happened afterwards. He was severely ill, and the doctor was called. Once He was better (I'll skip the full story here), He told the friends that He was ill. To some He even said that He was poisoned. But, and here's the important thing, He didn't tell people that it was Mirza Yahya who did it. It was only later, after the other friends spread this around and it became well-known, that He referred to it in His Writings. He confirmed a truth, but as far as I can tell, He never spread that truth around Himself.

Later, when this same faithless brother tried to convince Salmani, Baha'u'llah's barber, to murder the Blessed Beauty, Baha'u'llah told Salmani not to tell anyone. With His sin-covering eye, He encouraged others to do the same.

So, would spreading the truth of this situation be defending oneself? I don't think so. The Central Figures of our Faith reported the effects of these attacks, but didn't cast the blame upon an individual until it was already well-known in the community through efforts other than Their own.

On to the next one: Could it be seeking justice? As framed in the questions, I don't think so. It seems like telling others about what I suffered would be seeking vengeance, not justice.

If I were seeking justice in a case like this, then I would go to the proper authorities that are designed to administer justice, such as the police, or a local Spiritual Assembly. To go to individuals would be, in my opinion, looking to get others to look unfavorably upon the individual in question, and that be wanting vengeance.

Going to the proper authorities, however, would be appropriate. They would be able to look at the case with an unbiased perspective and mete out the appropriate punishment. (Idealistic of me, isn't it? But if we don't strive for our ideals, what are we striving for?)

In the drastic case of, say, a sex offender, the police arrest the individual, at least in Canada they do, and then after they have served the appropriate punishment the case is examined again. If the person is deemed to be likely to re-offend, and considered a danger to the public, or some section thereof, then further measures are taken. They are generally put on a sexual offenders list and monitored. When they move into an area where others may be at risk, a warning is put out. To contrast this with the first question, the police are not looking to defend others, but rather to protect those that may not be able to protect themselves, such as children. A real life example is visible near my son's school. All the stores near his school have a photo of a known sex offender living in the area who is deemed a high risk for re-offending. Is this fair, to plaster his picture everywhere? I'm not sure. I am not an authority on this, but it does get everyone in the area to ensure that this person is not tempted by hanging around the schoolyard. This is protection, not defense.

So could telling others be something other than backbiting? Well, it's not defense, nor is it seeking justice, if told to people other than those in a position of authority. In some cases it could be a form of protection, but again, I think that's the case only if it is done by those in that appropriate position of authority.

Is there anything that I'm missing? Maybe. But if not, then I would have to conclude for myself that I would consider it backbiting.

And I have to say, at the very beginning, I would not have said that. it was only by going through this series of questions posed by the reader that I came to this conclusion for myself.

I would love to read what others think about this, for I think it opens up a great conversation that is truly important to have.

Thanks,. Anonymous, for a great question.