The ruling on several forms of backbiting

Question

Here are several forms of backbiting (ghiba): A wronged person describes the wrongdoing of the one who wronged him; to protect people from harm, one says things such as: “Do not accept the marriage proposal of so-and-so, because he is a drunkard or a gambler”; “Do not buy goods from such-and-such a trader, because he is a cheat and gives short weight”; or “Do not lend to so-and-so, because he is a swindler (?)

Answer

(a) Your view is correct, but the limit of need should not be exceeded. If somewhere protection from harm and damage can be achieved without naming the fault — for example, if it suffices to say, “It is not good to accept so-and-so’s proposal” — then one should not even state explicitly that he is a drunkard, a gambler and the like.

Source: Fatawa Mahmudiyya

Preview. The full text opens with JavaScript enabled.