The Ruling on Backbiting if it is to Expose an Injustice or to Obtain a Right

The questioner:
Shaykh, for example, if a person speaks about his companion regarding things that are not his faults, but he says, for example, "He did not invite me to his wedding feast," or "He did not invite me to his marriage," things that are not faults. Does he refrain from doing so because it is backbiting, or because it is a means to backbiting?

The Shaykh:
It is a type of backbiting. Yes, he speaks about him while he is absent, saying so-and-so is stingy, or so-and-so.

The questioner:
The stingy one.

The Shaykh:
Or it was spread to me.

The questioner:
Yes, yes.

The Shaykh:
Or this is different.

The questioner:
And it was a bad thing for me, and welcome.

The Shaykh:
Because the other party dislikes this thing; he dislikes it being talked about. Yes.

The questioner:
And if he says, "He wronged me and lied about me," I backbite him.

The Shaykh:
If the speech about the absent person is in the category of obtaining the right that a person has, where there is an oppressor and a usurper, he complains to the one in authority and says, "So-and-so wronged me, so-and-so ate my money, so-and-so did such and such." This is permissible out of necessity in order to reach the right, because he cannot reach his right except by complaining and explaining the aggression against him. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Withholding the wealth of the rich is an injustice that makes his honor and punishment lawful."

The questioner:
O Allah, send blessings upon...

The Shaykh:
This is in the category of complaining in order to reach the right and remove the injustice.

The questioner:
And his saying "his honor is lawful" is restricted to the ruler, or is it absolute?

The Shaykh:
His honor is exposed by his complaint to the ruler. As for the one who has no authority, there is no benefit in mentioning the grievance to him, because it does not help in any way. Yes.