The statement of al-Hafiz: “And in it is the sufficiency of forbidding evil by speech, even in the absence of the one being rebuked, so that whoever hears it may take a lesson and guard against falling into it.”

The reader: “The statement of al-Hafiz: ‘And in it is the sufficiency of forbidding evil by speech, even in the absence of the one being rebuked, so that whoever hears it may take a lesson and guard against falling into it.’ Does this action apply whether this person is a ruler or a subject? We know that you, our Shaykh, issued a ruling last year that backbiting rulers and backbiting scholars is not permissible because of the harm in it?”

The Shaykh : Yes, because of the harm in it. But if there is a benefit, then the benefit is the starting point, and the backbiting here becomes advice, not mere backbiting.

The questioner : Shaykh, I asked once, O Shaykh, I said: If I see a fault in a responsible man or one of the rulers, do I address him in his presence and direct the speech to him, saying that he erred in such and such, in his presence? How is that?

The Shaykh : It is correct. If it is in our presence, it is not backbiting. Backbiting is derived from absence, if you are absent from him, because it contains harm, and because a word may be added and something attributed to the speaker that he did not say.