Numerous are the Hadiths that stress the importance of observing proper moral standards in what we say. This applies to both poetry and ordinary speech or writing. We are often judged by what we say. People often have no indication of what we really feel until we have expressed our feelings in words. Hence it is only to be expected that Islam should stress that what we say should always conform to Islamic values.
One of the most important of these is telling the truth. A Muslim must never resort to telling a lie. Although a concession is given in three particular situations when saying an untruth is not considered a lie, there is no justification for lying in any other way. But we all find ourselves in some sort of a situation when telling the truth may cause a problem or lead to trouble that should be avoided at all costs. What to do in such a situation, when the first thing that comes to mind is that the truth should not be said if trouble is to be avoided?
The answer is given by the Prophet himself who is reported to have said: “Ambiguity may provide a way out to avoid telling lies.” (Related by Al-Bukhari in Al-Adab Al-Mufrad, Al-Tabari and Al-Tabarani.)
Here the Prophet points out a way out that eliminates the need for telling a lie. It is the use of an ambiguous statement that may direct the listener away from what the speaker does not want to tell him. Yet the statement is true. This is often used by poets, literary figures, politicians and ordinary people in every day speech. The statement would be true, but its relevance to the case in hand is not readily apparent. Thus, the truth, which is meant to be avoided, could only be understood from it after reflection and deep thinking. Rather, the listener’s attention is deflected away from it by the apparent meaning of the statement, which is also true. Thus, the speaker would not have said a lie, but he would avoid saying what he is keen not to say in order to avoid a worse situation.
The Prophet himself resorted to this method on one occasion, when he answered a question put to him by a Bedouin: “Who are you from?” The Bedouin was asking him about his tribe and people. This was shortly before the Battle of Badr and the Prophet was with his companions who were to fight that battle. Giving the Bedouin a straight answer could have meant that the enemy would gather intelligence about the location of the Muslim forces.
Hence the Prophet’s answer was covered with ambiguity. He said: “We are from water.” He meant that they, like all human beings, were created from the semen fluid. The Bedouin understood the Prophet’s answer as meaning that they belonged to the marshland of Iraq where water was plentiful that the area itself might be called water. There is nothing wrong in resorting to such ambiguity in order to avoid a straightforward answer that may land the speaker in trouble.
A different type of objectionable speech is that to which poets may resort in trying to degrade their opponents. This used to be done frequently in Arabic poetry, which, in Arabian society, played a role similar to that of the media in our modern times. A poet would use his talent to abuse an opponent, or to abuse a tribe that might have had a quarrel with his own tribe. Such abuse was sometimes highly effective. A tribe could be elevated or downgraded in Arabian ranking, on the basis of the poetry that mentions it. In order to highlight a poet’s responsibility in this regard, the Prophet says: “Among those guilty of the worst offenses is a poet who indiscriminately abuses an entire tribe, and a man who disclaims his father.” (Related by Al-Bukhari in Al-Adab Al-Mufrad, Ibn Majah and Ibn Hibban.)
When a poet speaks disparagingly of an entire tribe or an entire community, he is certainly including in his abuse some good people who are free of blame. He might have good reason to abuse some individuals of that tribe, as in the case of suffering an unjustifiable attack by a group belonging to it. They might have made away with his property, or abused him in one way or another. If he has such a grievance, he may be justified in denouncing those people who attacked or wronged him. But when he abuses the whole tribe to which his attackers belong, he would be including in his abuse some God-fearing people who might have come to his aid had they known of the wrong he suffered. Thus, his poetry would not be avenging the attack against him, but would do wrong to some innocent people. This is a grave offense.
What applies to a poet in old times applies today to journalists and broadcasters who use the means available to them to unjustifiably abuse people who may be free of blame. This is particularly true when such journalists and broadcasters target an entire community. This is now recognized as a serious offense in contemporary society. Some countries include it in offenses that could lead to community trouble. Some have constituted authorities that look into race relations, and an attack of this type would be dealt with, and punished by such authorities. Here we see the Prophet describing such abuse as one of the worst offenses a human being could commit.
The other type the Prophet points out is that of a man disclaiming his father. Perhaps nothing would aggrieve a father more than seeing his son declaring that he does not belong to him, or claiming that he is born to a different father. If this is done because the father is of a low rank in society and the son aspires to a higher level, it is so injurious to the father. Thus, the father is paid back for all the kindness and love he had shown to his son, and for the trouble he took in upbringing him by being disclaimed. The father is bound to take such an insult to heart and to feel its pain for the rest of his life. We all know the emphasis Islam puts on being kind and dutiful to one’s parents. Disclaiming one’s father or mother is the ultimate insult that one could level at them. Hence, the Prophet says that it is one of the worst offenses a human being could commit.
