Principles dealing with Tabdee‘ and

Tahd͟hīr. Do we need a consensus? Why

have not other scholars spoken about
him?
All praise is for Allāh alone the Lord of the
creation and may praise, peace and security be
upon the noblest of the Prophets and the
Messengers—our Prophet Muḥammad, his
family and all his companions. To proceed:

Question: Some scholars declare a man to be an

innovator and others do not hold him to be
such. Some of the students follow the statement
of the one who does not declare him to be an
innovator; is it allowed for me to rebuke him?

@Aboo Tasneem
Ash-Shaykh Rabee‘ bin Hādi al-Madkhalī
(hafidhahullāh) said:
“This is from the fitan (trials and tribulations) in
the public arena at present. Indeed, it has lasted
for a long time—it has lasted for a long time
despite many of the youth knowing the truth (in
this matter); may Allāh bless you.
And the condition: an ijmā' (consensus) is
required for tabdī' (to declare an individual to be
an innovator) or for jarḥ (criticism) of him, is
not to be stipulated. Rather the statement of a
single individual is sufficient with regards to jarḥ
wa ta'dīl (criticism and commendation).”

Translator’s note: This condition ‘there must

be a consensus to declare someone an innovator
@Aboo_Tasneem
or to accept the judgement that has been passed
on an individual to be an innovator’ on the face
of it entails that a person is not to be judged to
be an innovator up until the scholars are in
agreement. One might think this is exercising
caution and restraint; however, the true intent
behind this false principle is to protect the
people of innovation from the jarḥ (criticism) of
the scholars. So when a scholar levels criticism
against an individual, with proofs and evidences,
they shout and scream, feigning piety and in
defence of the one who has been supposedly
oppressed, ‘the scholars are not united against
this individual’ or ‘such and such scholar has not
said anything concerning this individual’ or ‘the
Lajnah Da’imah of Saudi ‘Arabia (the permanent
committee for issuing verdicts) has not spoken
about this individual, why hasn't the matter

@Aboo_Tasneem
been taken to them’, all of this to defend the
person who has been criticised for his falsehood.
So in actuality this corrupt principle has been
formulated to nullify the criticism and warnings
of the scholars in order to protect misguided
individuals and groups. So from where did they
get this principle? Is this what the salaf were
upon? Did the scholars of al-jarḥ wa at-ta‘deel
(scholars that specialise in the science of criticism
and commendation) specify that there has to be
a consensus or a particular number of scholars
have to agree? No doubt the answer is ‘no’. So,
may Allāh have mercy upon you, pay attention
to this; it will save you from the ploys and
confusion sown by the people of deception in
order to discourage the salafi from accepting the
jarḥ (criticism) and the tahdhīr (warning)
against the people of falsehood and innovation.

@Aboo_Tasneem
The Shaykh (hafidhahullāh) continues:
“Therefore, if a group level criticism at him and
declare him to be an innovator, then it is
sufficient for the Muslim who is seeking the
truth. As for a person of desire, then nothing
suffices him and he hangs from the spider's
thread.”

Translator’s Note:
The person of desire makes every lame excuse
not to accept the criticism levelled against an
individual, even though it is presented with
proofs and explanations. Oftentimes this is
employed to defend an innovator or a misguided
individual.

@Aboo_Tasneem
Shaykh (hafidhahullāh) continues:
“So perhaps (some of) the people may not know
of the criticism and they are busy;”

Translator’s Note:
Here the Shaykh gives an example as to why a
Salafi scholar may praise an individual who has
been criticised: It may be the case simply the
scholar who has issued the praise is unaware of
the criticism or the reasons for the criticism; he
has not studied the affair or it is unclear to him
due to the extremely deceptive nature of the
plots and plans of ahlul-Bid‘ah (people of
innovation) and their fluctuations in their
principles and positions.

@Aboo_Tasneem
The Shaykh (hafidhahullāh) went on to say:
“(On the other hand some of) the people have
studied (the case of the individual that the
criticism has been levelled against), they know
that this person has been criticised and is
deserving of the criticism because he is a liar; an
individual who has lost his integrity; because he
attacks the scholars, because he formulates
corrupt principles to oppose the Salafi
methodology and its adherents. They know all
of this. And after advising him, which is not
binding upon them to do so, they advised and
clarified, but this person refused (to accept). So
they were obliged to declare him to be an
innovator.”

@Aboo_Tasneem
Translator’s Note:
Oftentimes the people of Bid’ah and those who are
affected by them portray the scholars of the Sunnah
and their students as those who recklessly criticise
individuals. However, this is far from the truth.
Rather, if an objective person seeking the truth
studies the refutations and the criticisms he would
find that these scholars are very precise and just in
their criticism explaining errors of the individual
accompanied by the reasons behind the criticism,
oftentimes referencing books and page numbers.
The refutations of Shaykh Rabee‘ against
‘Abdur-Raḥman ‘Abdul-Khāliq, ‘Ali Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī
and Abul-Ḥasan al-Ma’ribi and others are testament to
this.

@Aboo_Tasneem
Shaykh Rabee‘ (hafidhahullāh) continues:
“Therefore, what is the excuse for the one who
remains like this, hanging from the spider's
thread (saying): by Allāh such a person has
praised him! By Allāh they (the scholars) are not
in agreement on declaring him to be an
innovator?!”

Translator’s Note:
If a single scholar, with credible evidence,
criticises an individual then it is to be accepted,
even if the one who has been criticised has been
praised by another scholar; this is on the basis of
the principle mentioned by the scholars of
ḥadīth: the detailed criticism levelled against a
person takes precedence over the praise of him.

@Aboo_Tasneem
Al-Ḥāfiẓ ibn Hajar stated in Nukhbah (p.86, ed.
āl-A‘waj sabr, Dār ibn Hazm), ‘The criticism
takes precedence over the praise, if it (the
criticism) is issued with an explanation
from the one who is acquainted with its
reasons (i.e. the reasons for the criticism).’
So what if those who praise him are numerous?
In this instance the scholars mention the
aforementioned principle still applies, as
explained by az-Zarkashī in an-Nukat (3/362, ed.
Furayj, Adwaa’ as-Salaf) ‘That which is correct
is that the criticism is given precedence (i.e.
over the praise) due to what we have
mentioned, that is because the criticism is
given precedence due to it containing
additional information which is hidden
(unknown) to the one who has issued the
praise. And that, his deficiency and
@Aboo_Tasneem
shortcomings are (still) present, even if
those who praise him are more. Therefore,
even if a single person levelled a criticism
against an individual and hundred others
praised him, then the statement of the
single person is given precedence.’
What if the criticism of an individual contradicts
the praise of an Imām or a senior scholar? The
aforementioned principle still stands, in this
regard Shaykh Rabee‘ (hafidhahullāh) stated in
his Ta‘līq ‘ala Kitāb al-Jawāb al-Kāfi (Tape2,
www.rsalafs.com/?p=1721): ‘the criticism issued
with an explanation is given precedence over
the general praise, it is necessary that these
principles are applied in the field of
‘Criticism and Praise’. So for example, one
day al-Albāni praised an individual, then it
became clear to him that he is not deserving
@Aboo_Tasneem
of the praise, so he said concerning him (he
is a) Khārijī. Ibn Bāz one day praised such
and such and then their mistakes became
clear to him; so he said concerning them
they are the callers to falsehood. Then come
the people of falsehood and spread his praise
and bury the criticism. Let us assume that
Ibn Bāz and al-Albāni continued in their
praise of him up until they passed away.
And they do not have anything except these
praises. Are the people obliged to accept
their praises and close their eyes and make
their intellect redundant concerning the
mistakes of such and such who have been
praised by al-Albāni or bin Bāz, (while) the
mistakes are clear and the criticism is clear?
So is it allowed for a Muslim to cling on to
the praise of such and such whilst the

@Aboo_Tasneem
criticism is clear concerning the one who
has been praised? The criticism is clear…’
He also stated in his Ta‘līq ‘ala Kitāb al-Hādi
al-Arwāh (tape 2, www.rsalafs.com/?p=1721 )
‘‘Muḥammad bin Jarīr said, Ibn Ḥumaid
narrated to us from Ibrāhīm bin al-Mukhtār
from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Attaa' from Ka‘b bin
‘Ujrah from the Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
concerning the saying of Allāh, the Exalted
[ٌ‫سنَى َو ِزيَا َدة‬ َ ‫ين َأ ْح‬
ْ ‫سنُوا ا ْل ُح‬ َ ‫ ’]لِلَّ ِذ‬And in this chain
of transmission there occurs Ibn Humaid,
there is some speech concerning him.
‘Muḥammad bin Ḥumaid ar-Rāzi’ and there
is some speech concerning him from the
scholars of ḥadīth; Imām Aḥmad praised
him and others besides him criticised him
and declared him to be weak and they are
severe in declaring him weak. And from
@Aboo_Tasneem
those who declared him to be weak was Ibn
Khuzaimah, raḥimahullāh, so it was said to
him: ‘Verily, Aḥmad declares him to be a
person of integrity or praises him.’ So he
(Ibn Khuzaimah) replied: ‘If Aḥmad knew
him as we know him he would not have
praised him.’ And this is the methodology
adopted by Ahlus-Sunnah and Ahlul-Ḥadīth:
‘the one who knows is a proof against the
one who does not know’ and that ‘criticism
takes precedence over praise…’’

@Aboo_Tasneem
Shaykh Rabee‘ (hafidhahullāh) continues:
“Those who have not declared him to be an
innovator are of various categories: (a) People
who have not studied (i.e. the case of the
individual that has been criticised) and they are
excused. (b) People who have studied him and
they defend falsehood—people who have
studied (him) and they know what he has with
him from falsehood, but they refuse (to accept
it) in defence of this innovator; these are the
worthless ones. (c) And those who are silent,
there is no proof for their silence. As for those
who criticised him and made clear the criticism
levelled at this person, then the objective and
impartial person is obligated to accept the truth
(from them) because the proof is with them.”

@Aboo_Tasneem
Translator’s note:
In this regard the people of falsehood (the likes
of al-Ma'ribi, al-Halabi and their followers)
utilise yet another false principle to reject the
truth and reject the criticism of the scholars
against misguided individuals and groups: The
principle of ‘lā yalzamunī’ (it is not obligatory
upon me to accept). Concerning this principle
Shaykh Rabee‘ states (rabee.net): ‘And among
their principles, in order to refute and reject
the truth, the decisive proofs, the clear
evidences and to remain staunch upon
falsehood is the principle ‘lā yalzamunī’ (it is
not obligatory upon me to accept) which
they have made into a protective shield
utilising it to repel and avert the truth. So
no matter how much an individual from
them opposes the truth, he will not be able
@Aboo_Tasneem
to return from this opposition, no matter
how tremendous it is; it does not matter
how evil their stances and principles are;
nor how they defend themselves and defend
the people of innovation and misguidance
with falsehood; nor does it matter how
much they censure and attack the people of
the Sunnah with falsehood and lies; nor
does it matter , whatever the issue may be, if
the Salafi brings evidences and proofs they
will not accept it, rather they reject all of it
with this protective shield-‘lā yalzamunī’ (it
is not obligatory upon me to accept).’
Shaykh Rabee‘ also emphasises here that the
criticism of an individual should be clarified and
the person who is issuing the criticism should
present the proof. One cannot level criticisms
against the people without proof, such criticism
@Aboo_Tasneem
is not to be considered. Indeed, if the one who
the criticism is levelled against is a person of
Sunnah, then detailed proof is required. So it is
for this reason Muḥammad bin Hādi’s criticisms
of Shaykh ‘Ubaid al-Jābirī, Shaykh ‘Abdullāh
al-Bukhārī and others from the people of
knowledge and students is not accepted; neither
is his warnings against them accepted because he
has not provided any proof. Attacking the
scholars with baseless criticisms is inconsistent
with the methodology of the people of the
Sunnah. As-Sābūnī, rahimahullāh, said
(‘Aqīdat-us-Salaf Asḥābil-Hadīth): “One of the
distinguishing signs of Ahlus-Sunnah is
their love of the Imāms of the Sunnah, its
Scholars, its helpers and its allies.”

@Aboo_Tasneem
Shaykh Rabee‘ (hafidhahullāh) ends the
response by saying: “And the one who hangs
from the spider’s thread, which I have alluded to
before, does not have any excuse in front of
Allāh, the Mighty and Sublime. May Allāh bless
you.”

Source:
‫ رجل بعض العلماء يبدعه وبعضهم لا يبدعه وبعض الطلاب‬:‫سائل يقول‬
‫يتبعه اتباعا لقول من لا يبدعه فهل يجوز علي الإنكار عليه؟‬

Further Reading:
● Manhaj.Com | Jarḥ & Ta'deel
● Where are the detailed proofs for the
criticism (or jarḥ) against the Scholars of
Sunnah? – Abu Khadeejah

@Aboo_Tasneem