Explanation of the first characteristic that permits backbiting, which is the one who has been wronged, and mention of the evidence for it.

The Shaykh : First of all, he said: "Casting aspersions is not backbiting in six cases: the one who has been wronged." The first of them is the one who has been wronged, the victim who complains of his oppression to others. In this situation, this victim must mention his oppressor and the type of oppression he inflicted on him. This is undoubtedly backbiting, but this backbiting is not included in the general principle; rather, it is an exception, even in the Noble Qur'an. He, the Exalted, said: , . It is permissible for the victim to mention his oppressor with bad words. Why? So that he can obtain his violated right. In this case, he, peace and blessings be upon him, explained the verse by saying: . "Layy" is stalling or dragging out the time. He has a debt, and the creditor comes to demand it, but he stalls him, saying to him: "Today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow," as is known among many people. This is not due to a genuine excuse, meaning a lack of means to pay his debt, but rather to benefit from the money in his possession, even if it harms the owner of the debt by delaying its payment. So he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ; the stalling by one who has the means to pay what he owes of debt ; it is permissible for the creditor to attack his honor. We must remember that "honor" in the language does not refer only to what touches a person's dignity regarding his women, but to what touches him generally in his character. So here, his honor is made permissible to be attacked; that is, it is permissible for the creditor who is being stalled by the debtor to mention his stalling, and that he is a man—for example—we gave him a loan, we lent him money for a specified term, and the month, two months, and three months have passed, and he is still stalling and stalling. He is not doing so out of poverty, but out of stinginess and miserliness, and as we mentioned earlier, exploiting this money for his personal benefit. It is permissible for the one being stalled by the owner of the right to attack him. He does not attack him by saying—for example, as is the custom of some people who have no good character—cursing his honor, his family, or perhaps his father. Rather, he does not go beyond attacking him in his person first, and in what relates to his stalling regarding his repayment of the debt second.
He, peace be upon him, added to his honor, saying: . This punishment is for the ruler. So the ruler is permitted to imprison the debtor if it becomes clear to him that he is able to pay but is stalling. This is one of the hadiths that testifies to the exception of the one who has been wronged when he backbites his oppressor from the forbidden backbiting.
There is a story that occurred during the time of the Messenger, may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him, which contains first the proof for this exception from backbiting, and also something of the style of the Messenger, may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him, in dealing with the mistakes of the oppressors and in standing up for the victims. It is reported in "Al-Adab al-Mufrad" by Imam al-Bukhari and "Sunan Abu Dawud" and others, from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and others, that a man came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and said: "O Messenger of Allah, my neighbor has wronged me." So he, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered him to take out his belongings and put them on the side of the road. He emptied the house, and he told him: "Take it out and put it on the road." The purpose and meaning of this Prophetic command are clear: that people will be alerted and their attention drawn. A man has taken out all the belongings of his house and put them on the side of the road, so they must wonder and ask him: "What is the matter?" And this is what happened. He did nothing but say: "My neighbor has wronged me!" So what did the people do, given their commitment to their clear and correct Islamic guidance, which knows no meaning for hypocrisy or compromise? They did nothing but curse the neighbor who had wronged him, saying: "May Allah kill him! May Allah curse him!" So these curses or insults were sufficient to discipline the man. ; because of his harm to his Muslim neighbor. So here, when the man first came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, complaining and saying: "My neighbor has wronged me," one wonders: Does this neighbor not hate to be said, in front of people, and indeed in front of the Master of people, that he is an oppressor? Undoubtedly, he hates that. So this can fall under the general principle: . Does this type fall under the general principle?
The answer is: No. Why? Because he did not backbite his brother the oppressor in the sense of venting his anger and soothing his resentment, but rather it was an attempt on his part to reach the removal of the oppression from him by his oppressive neighbor. For this reason, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not take the stance of disapproval toward this wronged neighbor. No, no, no, this is not backbiting included in the general principle. This is what should be preserved, and this is the first type. He said: "The one who has been wronged."