The author, al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him), previously mentioned a beneficial chapter in his book *Riyad al-Salihin* regarding what is permissible of backbiting.

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The author, al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him), previously mentioned a beneficial chapter in his book *Riyad al-Salihin* regarding what is permissible of backbiting. He mentioned several issues, specifically six issues, for which he provided evidence that has been discussed previously. Among these is complaining of injustice, meaning if a person complains to the authority about someone who has wronged him, there is no harm in that, because he will not be able to obtain his right except by doing so. The evidence for this is the hadith of Hind bint 'Utbah, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said to him: "O Messenger of Allah, indeed Abu Sufyan is a stingy man" meaning: miserly, "he does not give me and my children what is sufficient for us in a proper manner". She described him as stingy, and this is a description of blame that a person dislikes. But why did she say that? It was a complaint to remove the injustice from her. This is because it is obligatory for a person to spend on his wife and his children in a proper manner, neither too little nor too much, neither falling short nor exceeding, as Allah the Exalted said: . As for stinginess with what is obligatory, this is forbidden and not permissible. And whoever is subjected to that has the right to complain to a person who can secure his right for him. So, Hind complained to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not say to her, "Do not say he is a stingy man." He approved of that because she was seeking her right. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to her: . He permitted her to take from his wealth without his knowledge what is sufficient for her and her children, but in a proper manner, meaning she should not exceed that. This indicates several issues. First: the permissibility of backbiting a person to complain of his injustice, but on the condition that this is done before someone who can secure the right for its owner. If that is not the case, there is no benefit in complaining. Second: it is obligatory for a person to spend on his family, his wife and his children, in a proper manner. Even if the wife is wealthy, it is obligatory for the husband to spend on her. Among these issues is if the wife is studying and the husband has stipulated in the contract that he will allow her to study, then he has no right to any part of the salary she receives, not half, not more, and not less. The salary is hers as long as he stipulated in the contract that he would not prevent her from studying and he accepted that. So he has no right to prevent her from studying, and he has no right to take anything from her compensation, i.e., her salary; it belongs to her. However, if he did not stipulate that he would allow her to study, and then after marrying her he said, "Do not study," then in this case, they may agree on whatever they wish, on whatever they wish. For example, he may say, "I will allow you to study on the condition that I have half of the salary, or two-thirds, or three-quarters, or a quarter, or something similar, on whatever they agree upon." But if he stipulated that she would study and he accepted it, then he has no right to prevent her, and he has no right to take anything from her salary. Among the benefits of this hadith is also that it is permissible for a person who has a right to maintenance from another person, and the one obligated to provide maintenance refuses to do so, to take from his wealth the amount of the maintenance, whether he knows it or not, and whether he permits it or not. For example, a woman may take from her husband's pocket what is sufficient for her and her children. Similarly, she may take from his bag or his box what is sufficient for her and her children, whether he knows it or not. If someone asks: "If I have a right against a person and he denies it and refuses, and I am able to take something from his wealth, is it permissible for me to take the amount of my right from his wealth? For example, a person owes me one hundred riyals and he denies it, saying, 'You have nothing with me.' If I am able to take something from his wealth, is it permissible for me to take the equivalent of one hundred riyals?" The answer is: No, it is not permissible. The difference between this and maintenance is that maintenance is for the preservation of the self, and its cause is apparent; everyone knows that this is so-and-so's wife and that the wife has a right to maintenance. In contrast, a debt is a hidden matter that people are not aware of. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This is the stronger opinion in this issue. It is referred to by scholars as the issue of "al-zafar" (seizing), meaning if a person who has a right against someone seizes his wealth, does he take from it or not? The answer is detailed: if it is in place of obligatory maintenance, there is no harm. But if it is in place of an obligatory debt, it is not permissible, due to the generality of the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . And success is from Allah.
The reader: The author (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted in the context of the hadiths in the chapter on the prohibition of talebearing: "From Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

Shall I tell you what 'Al-'Adhu' (falsehood and slandering) is? It is calumny which is committed among the people.

ألا أنبئكم ما العضه هي النميمة القالة بين الناس

Riyad as-Salihin 1538

Narrated by Muslim".

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book *Riyad al-Salihin*, in the chapter on the prohibition of talebearing, quoting from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: . This is one of the good methods of teaching, which is for the teacher to pose a question to the listeners to alert them, so as to stimulate their understanding and make them attentive to the speech. . "Al-Naba'" and "al-khabar" have the same meaning in the Arabic language. "Al-'udhah" is from cutting and tearing, from cutting and tearing. From this is the saying of Allah the Exalted: , meaning parts and fragments; they believe in some of it and disbelieve in some of it. So what is the "al-'udhah" that divides the community and tears them apart? He said: It is talebearing, where a person conveys the words of people about one another, the words of people about one another, in order to cause corruption between them. It is one of the major sins. It was revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about two men being tortured in their graves, and he was informed that one of them used to walk with talebearing. This is because some people, and may Allah protect us from that, are tempted and become eager to convey the words of people about one another, and they adorn themselves with it before people. He comes to so-and-so and says, "So-and-so says such and such about you." He may be truthful, and he may be lying. Even if he is truthful, it is forbidden and one of the major sins. And Allah the Exalted has forbidden obeying such a person, saying: . And some of the people of knowledge said: "Whoever tells you a tale, tell him a tale", meaning whoever conveys the words of people about you, he will convey your words, so beware of him, do not obey him, and do not pay attention to him. In this is evidence of the good teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), where he uses methods that make the listener attentive, especially if he sees negligence in the listener. Then it is necessary for him to use the method that alerts him, because the purpose of the address is understanding, comprehension, and memorization, so a person uses beneficial methods for that.