A physical fault is, for example, to say: “This man is one-eyed,” or, “His nose is crooked,” or, “His mouth is wide,” and the like.

A religious fault is, for example, to say: “This person is negligent in his prayers,” or, “This one does not show dutifulness to his parents,” and the like.

A character fault is, for example, to say: “This person is foolish, quick-tempered, and irritable,” and the like—if this is said in his absence. If it is said in his presence, it is called abuse, not backbiting. The jurists add to this, in defining an upright person, that he must not act contrary to proper decorum. If he does so, he is not upright. They give as examples someone who eats in the marketplace, or someone who mocks people by imitating their voices, movements, and the like.

By analogy with Ahmad’s statement, “Whoever abandons the witr prayer is an evil man whose testimony should not be accepted,” one might conclude that whoever abandons an emphasized act of worship forfeits his uprightness.

However, it should be said that testimony in financial matters is not like testimony concerning religious reports. In financial matters, we must be strict, especially in this age, because of the many people who give false testimony. But in religious testimony, it is unlikely that a person would lie, unless there are incentives that would lead him to do so.

For example, in some countries, it is said that if a person testifies that Ramadan has begun, he is given a reward; or if he testifies concerning Shawwal, he receives a reward. Such things may tempt one weak in faith to testify to what he has not seen.

If we were to adopt the view of the jurists, we would find no one who is upright; for who is free of backbiting,