Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) approved of what was related from Haatim Al-Asam, when it was said to him: “You are a non-Arab and do not speak eloquently, yet no one debates you, except that you silence him. So with what do you gain victory over your opponents?” So he responded: “By three things: I become happy when my opponent speaks correctly (on a point). I become grieved when he errs. And I withhold my tongue from him, lest I should say something that would harm him” - or something with this meaning - so Ahmad (rahimahullaah) said: “How wise of a man he is.”
Therefore, refuting weak (erroneous) opinions and clarifying the truth with regard to what opposes it, based upon sound evidences, is not from what these scholars detested. Rather, it was from that which they loved and for which they commended and praised those who did it. So it does not enter into the realm of backbiting at all. But suppose there is someone that hates to have his error, which contradicts the Sunnah, exposed. In this case, there is no consideration given to his hatred for that, because hating to manifest the truth - if it is in opposition to the opinion of a man - is not from those matters that are praiseworthy.
Rather it is an obligation on the Muslim to love that the truth be made manifest and that the Muslims (in general) are aware of it, regardless of whether it is in conformity or in opposition to his (personal) view.
This is from the aspects of sincerity (naseehah) towards "Allaah, His Book, His Messenger, His Religion, the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk." And this is, in fact, the Religion itself, as the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has informed us.."
Taken from The Difference between Advising and Condemning by Imaam, the Haafidh Zayn-ud-Deen Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalee (rahimahullaah) [d. 795H]
