Explaining the permissibility of describing a person with the bad attributes he possesses for the sake of warning against him, and that this is not backbiting.

The Shaykh : In the course of narrating the speech, may it be good, if Allah wills, and he is a suitor from among us, so what is it to us... until when the letter reaches the proposal, they will be informed of the matter and not proceed... This description and identification is forbidden, even if it involves backbiting, it is not haram.
"Censure is not backbiting in six cases: *a complainant, an identifier,*" it is "an identifier," "and a warning giver." The third case: I see so-and-so associating with so-and-so, so I go and tell him, "Be careful, walking with so-and-so is good, if Allah wills. This is his character..." Why? Because the intention here is warning. You warn the righteous young man from mixing with the corrupt young man. You forbid the young man of good character from mixing with the young man of bad character. Why? Because the nature of people is that it spreads, like beautiful fruits; if you do not place them away from rotten fruit, it will spoil them and the infection will spread to them. This is the Sunnah of Allah in His creation, and you will not find any change in the Sunnah of Allah. For this reason, the Messenger (peace be upon him) warned against the company of the bad and said: meaning he gives it to you for free . So the companion of the righteous man, in any case, benefits you like him, just as sitting with a perfumer: either he gives it to you for free, or you buy from him for a price, or at least you smell a pleasant scent. As for the companion of the bad, he said (peace be upon him) in the completion of the hadith: . This and that are like the companion of the righteous and the companion of the bad. So if we see a righteous person mixing with a wicked person, we warn him and say to him, "So-and-so, the one you are walking with, does such and such, says such and such, believes such and such, and so on..." We say, "By Allah, leave these people. This is not disliked backbiting; rather, this is obligatory backbiting, not merely permissible. This is a warning: beware of walking with so-and-so because his attribute is such and such. This is obligatory. So now we have with us, up to this point, three characteristics: a complainant, an identifier, and a warning giver. The fourth characteristic is: 'and one who openly commits open sinfulness.' One who openly drinks khamr, who does not fear Allah and does not feel shy before the servants of Allah. This is the open sinner who openly commits his sinfulness. So... it is said, 'So-and-so, the one who is drinking khamr...' Absolutely, this falls under the general text... In terms of meaning, it falls under it, but in terms of... this type in that general text is the sinner who declares his sinfulness and his lewdness. For example, a bar is open, a place for khamr is open. This is not forbidden backbiting at all; this is excluded from forbidden backbiting. As for the third question, excuse me, the fifth type, after he said 'and one who openly commits open sinfulness,' he said: 'and one who seeks a ruling.' This is the fifth category of backbiting excluded from prohibition. The one who seeks a ruling has many examples, cases, and types. A man comes to the scholar and says, 'My wife does such and such and such and such, what do you say?' Or a woman comes to the scholar and says, 'My husband does such and such and such and such.' Each of them describes the other with a description that is backbiting. Is this permissible or haram? This is permissible because it is excluded from forbidden backbiting. The evidence for that is... ... she describes him as a stingy man, meaning he is stingy, meaning he is not fulfilling his obligations toward his wife and children. 'Is it permissible for me to take from his wealth what suffices me and my children?' He said (peace be upon him): . This is the hadith, and there is nothing after... from what we are now discussing, which is the woman saying, 'My husband is stingy.' Why did the Messenger remain silent about this backbiting? Because it is backbiting that came in the context of seeking a ruling. So, 'My husband is stingy, he is not fulfilling the obligation of maintenance for us. Is it permissible for me to take from his wealth without him...?' He told her it is permissible, but with one condition, or rather two conditions. The first condition is implied, as if he is telling her, 'If you are truthful that he is stingy and that he is not fulfilling the right of maintenance, then it is permissible for you to take from his wealth what suffices you and your son, but with the condition of 'ma'ruf (what is right),' meaning what is known by custom to be sufficient for the amount you take. As if the Messenger (peace be upon him) is telling her, 'Do not exploit the Shari'ah's permission for you to take from the wealth of your stingy husband who is neglecting the right of maintenance for you and your children. Do not exploit the Shari'ah's permission for you to take what suffices you and your child; do not take more... The man... No, take from his wealth what suffices you and your child in a manner that is 'ma'ruf.' This example is what you verify with, meaning if you are in abundance of wealth, then provision comes to you from elsewhere.