in speech, except by one who has been wronged.” It has been reported that this verse was revealed concerning a man who stayed with some people, but they offered him no hospitality. If this applies to someone wronged by being denied hospitality—whose obligatory nature people have disputed, although the correct view is that it is obligatory—then how much more does it apply to someone wronged by being denied a right to which the Muslims unanimously agree he is entitled? Or he may mention his wrongdoer’s faults in retaliation, without overstepping the bounds, resorting to falsehood, or wronging anyone else; refraining from this, however, is better.

Another circumstance is when this is done to offer Muslims sincere advice concerning their religious and worldly affairs, as in the authentic hadith concerning Fātimah bint Qays:

“When she consulted the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, about whom she should marry, she said, ‘Mu‘āwiyah and Abū Jahm have proposed to me.’ He replied, ‘As for Mu‘āwiyah, he is penniless and has no wealth. As for Abū Jahm, he frequently beats women.’”

Another narration states:

“He never puts his staff down from his shoulder.”

He thus explained to her that one was poor and might be unable to fulfil her rights, while the other would harm her by beating her. This was sincere advice to her, even though it involved mentioning a suitor’s fault. The same applies to advising a man about someone with whom he deals, whom he appoints as his agent or executor, whom he calls as a witness, or even to whom he submits a dispute for judgment, and similar matters.

If this applies to a private interest, then how much more important is giving advice where the rights of Muslims at large are at stake—concerning rulers, judges, witnesses, and officials, including those serving in the administrative bureaus and others? There is no doubt that sincere advice in such matters is of greater importance, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: