Commentary on
The Iron Rules

by Pir Zia Inayat Khan

Iron Rule 2
The second rule is: Speak not against others in their absence. This is a saying that, like all wise words, has at least seven levels of meaning. On one level of meaning, the most literal, it means do not speak critically, judgmentally against people who are not present in the conversation. At a deeper level, you could say to speak against someone who is not present means to not speak in judgment of someone when you are not present to that person. But without being present to that person means engaging profoundly, directly with the soul of that person. So to lightly discuss the characteristics and qualities of a person without truly being present to that person is an error.

But more literally, one is being asked not to speak about people when they’re not around, except in praise. Well, this is something that I think is very common to the experience of all of us. It’s just part of the social world, that people speak about other people more when they’re not around then when they are around. There’s a kind of an infectious quality to this kind of conversation or gossip. It might be something that one doesn’t naturally incline toward but one finds oneself caught up in a conversation in which one is coaxed, let’s say, into speaking in this way; that when another person is discussed and, among others there is a feeling of license, let’s say of liberty that is established, the feeling that if another is speaking that way, I too feel somehow moved to join in. Of course, it’s a great temptation but afterward, as soon as one removes oneself from that conversation, if one has awareness, one immediately regrets the intoxication of the moment and feels that “I have slipped.” Because what has been gained after all? Nothing! Because, as we have learned I think, in our studies of Suluk that attending to dissecting the errors, mistakes, bad qualities of other people is rarely, if ever, beneficial in bringing about a positive change in that person. On the contrary, almost always the reverse is true. The more that one takes notice of errors and impure qualities, the more that that is reinforced in the person and to an extraordinary degree our egos are mutually constructed.

The ego is not autonomously constructed in the psyche of a particular individual. The ego is a construct that develops in the fabric of society in inter-relationships, in the projection of impressions, as a result of the expectations and judgments of other people. To the extent that we are casting negative judgments, not only psychically but verbally, we are simply adding to the veils that already exist, occluding the reality of the person whom we profess to be referring to. Great scruple is recommended in the Sufi way with regard to gossip and, specifically, to recall whenever speaking of someone who is not present, to remember that the physical absence of that person is something that is an almost arbitrary fact, not relevant. Although we fixate on the data of our physical senses and the appearance of separation and distance, the study of physics or even biology is enough to confirm the interdependence and intimate inter-relationship of all things, let alone spiritual science, which absolutely confirms that each being is a mirror the impressions of which reflect upon every other surface. To say that by speaking in the person’s absence I have somehow spared that person, is an empty pretense. On the contrary, the note is sounded in the universe; it reverberates and the effect is felt. Moreover we fool ourselves in thinking that there is such a thing as privacy, that there is such a thing as inappropriate actions that are somehow hidden. Nothing is hidden. Everything is totally evident and apparent at the level of reality.

Murshid says, “It must be remembered that one shows lack of nobleness of character by love of gossiping. It is so natural, and yet it is a great fault in the character to cherish the tendency of talking about others. In the first place, it is a great weakness one shows when one passes remarks about someone behind his back; in the second place, it is against what may be called frankness. Besides it is judging another, which is wrong according to the teaching of Christ, which says Judge ye not, lest ye be judged.”

So that is always the best touchstone, to apply the same criterion to others as you would apply to yourself, do so unto others as you would have done unto you. If you would feel comfortable with someone speaking of you in your absence in the way that you are speaking of someone, then it’s probably OK. Or if you would feel comfortable saying what you are saying with that person right before you, then it’s probably OK. Those may be the two criteria to apply in each case of speaking of someone who’s not present. This will be our focus in the chivalrous path of futuwwa for this day, to speak not against others in their absence. It’s helpful to remember the exact form rather than just the vague idea of a prescription like this so recalling the words: Speak not against others in their absence.