And it is conditional upon one having neither animosity nor...

And it is conditional upon one having neither animosity nor fanaticism nor stating anything that violates his testimony and narrative, and he does not stand hostile to others such as being a man of taunting or casting doubts except, perhaps, when he openly commits transgression as we will state later.

Sixth: The object of the statement must deserve it because he is a pretender on its account such as a sinner who openly shows his sin, so much so that he does not hesitate to talk about the sin which he commits. He must be referred to with regard to what he admits and nothing more. The Messenger of Allāh (ص) has said, "One who puts down the covering of modesty from his face, to backbite him is not a sin at all" ( Al-`Awāli , Vol. 1, p. 105).

From this, it is quite obvious that to backbite him is permissible even if the sin is not mentioned. Regarding the permission to absolutely backbite the debauchee, the possibility stems from this statement of the Prophet (ص): "A debauchee is not backbitten" ( Al-`Awāli , Vol. 1, p. 438, tradition No. 153). It is stated that the tradition must be understood as applicable to a particular debauchee or to [backbite him in order to] force him to stop his committing sins.

Such is better except when the matter is attached to a religious objective and a sound goal which goes back to the backbiter who hopes the individual will on its account stop committing his sin. It will then enter the category of preventing a wrongdoing. Seventh: One must be widely known by a name whereby his defect is identified, such as "the lame" or "the blear-eyed", etc. There is no sin if one identifies him by it.

Scholars have done so due to the need for identification and because it has become so common, the individual himself no longer hates it, having come to know that he has become famous on its account. In fact, what the reliable scholars have indicated can be relied upon with regard to their narrative. As regarding identifying those who are still living, it is conditional on the acceptance of the individual to whom it is attributed as a general criterion for prohibition.

In that case, it is not categorized as backbiting. How can it be since when one can be identified by some other way, it would have been better?