What is occurring now amidst the debates between many individuals regarding what has been called… or concerning this new bidʿah called “al-Muwāzanah” (counterbalancing between the good and bad points) with respect to criticising men.

I say: Criticism either occurs in the biography of an individual which is a “historical” biography in which case it is necessary to mention what is both good and bad with respect to the individual.

However, when the intent behind the biographical detail of an individual is to warn the Muslims, and especially the general folk who do not have any knowledge pertaining to men and their defects—in fact it might even be the case that (this individual who is being warned against) might have a good and acceptable reputation with the common folk—however, he is concealing an evil ʿaqīdah or evil habits, yet the common folk do not know any of this about this man…

In this particular situation this innovation, which has been given the title of, “al-Muwāzanah” these days is not employed.

This is because the intent here is to give advice (to the Muslims) and the intent is not to give a comprehensive and exhaustive biographical details. Whoever studies the Prophetic Sunnah and Sīrah will not have any doubts about the futility of making this innovated precept of today absolute (in all circumstances), which is “al-Muwāzanah”.

This is because we find in tens of texts amongst the ahādeeth of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in which he mentions the evil aspect of a person in a situation that demands giving advice (to others) but it does not require presenting complete biographical details of the individual about whom the people are being advised. And the ḥadīths in this regard are so numerous for them all to be brought at this moment in time…

However, what is important concerning what is connected to this question is that at the end of this answer, I should say: Certainly, those who have innovated the bidʿah of “al-Muwāzanah”, no doubt they oppose the Book and they oppose the Sunnah, both the Sunnah of speech and that of action (i.e. they have opposed the Sunnah of the Prophet, both in deeds and words), and they oppose the manhaj of the Righteous Salaf.

For this reason, our position is that with respect to our understanding of the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), we associate ourselves with the Righteous Salaf. Why? There is no doubt amongst the Muslims, in my belief, that they (the Salaf) are more pious, fearful and knowledgeable… and so on than those who came after them. Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, mentions in the Noble Qurʾan, and this is one of the proofs of the first aspect (of the meaning) intended by the examples given earlier, [i.e. from the ḥadīths he mentioned earlier]:

Allāh does not love open pronouncement of sayings comprising evil, save for the one who has been wronged. (4:148)

So when one who has been wronged says, “So and so has wronged me”, is it then said back to him, “O my brother, mention his good points as well?”

By Allāh this new misguidance is one of strangest of affairs that has occurred in this time. And it is my belief that what has led those youth to introduce this newly-invented matter and to follow this bidʿah is love of recognition (fame). And it has been said in the past “Love of fame breaks the back”…

For this reason, in summary, I say that perhaps this saying (of ours) is the justly-balanced saying amidst these arguments which are taking place between the two parties.

It is differentiating between when we intend to provide a (complete) biography of an individual then we mention the good and bad points and between when we intend to give advice to the Ummah, or when the situation requires us to be brief and concise, then here we mention what the situation demands of warning, or declaring someone to be an innovator, or one who is astray, or even declaring him a disbeliever as well, when the conditions for takfīr have been met for that particular individual.

This is what I believe to be the truth with respect to that which those youth have differed about.

In short, I say: Certainly, the carrier of the flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl today, in the current times, and in truth, is our brother, Doctor Rabīʿ.

And as for those who refute him, then they do not do so on the basis of knowledge ever. And the knowledge is actually with him. Even though I always say, and I have said these words to him on the phone many times, that if only he was soft in his approach it would be more beneficial for the people regardless of whether they are with him or against him.

But as from the point of view of knowledge, then there is nothing for which the man can be criticised absolutely, except what I have just mentioned regarding his severity and harshness .

But as for the claim that he does not weigh matters correctly, then this is an extremely weak (meagre) saying. No one says such a thing except one of two people. Either an ignoramus and it is desirable that such a one be taught, or a deviant and we have no control over such one except that we supplicate to Allāh that he guides him to the Straight Path.

This is the answer to the question, and perhaps this is sufficient, and all praise is due to Allāh.

We, without doubt praise Allāh (عز وجل) that he has provided for this righteous daʿwah, which is firmly founded on the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Pious Predecessors, a number of callers in the Islāmic lands who establish the duty that is obligatory for some to fulfill and which is established by very few people in the Islamic lands today.

So belittling these two Shaykhs who call to the book and the Sunnah and what the Pious Predecessors were upon, and fight against those who oppose this correct methodology is, as will not be hidden from one and all, is something which emanates only from one of two people: Either from an ignorant person or a follower of desires.

As for the ignorant person, then it is possible to guide him, since he thinks that he is upon some knowledge - so when the correct knowledge becomes clear then he is guided. But as for the follower of desires then there is nothing we can do with him unless Allāh (تبارك وتعالى) guides him. So these people who speak against the two shaykhs - as we have mentioned - are either ignorant and so should be taught, or (they are) followers of their desires - and we should seek refuge from the evil of such a person, and we ask Allāh (عز وجل) that He either guides him or breaks his back.

What I have seen in the writings of Shaykh Dr. Rabīʿ is that they are beneficial, and I do not recall having seen a mistake he has made, or any departure from the methodology upon which we are united with him and he with us.

However with regard to Shaykh Muqbil - I have not read a great deal of his work - contrary to the case with our brother Rabīʿ. As for Rabīʿ it seems that his efforts in writing are greater than those of Shaykh Muqbil, and vice versa; Shaykh Muqbil in daʿwah and mixing with the people and calling them to the Book and the Sunnah, and admonishing and guiding is much involved, more than Shaikh Dr. Rabīʿ.

However I have said to him (Shaykh Rabīʿ) on more than one occasion in a telephone conversation between us that if you were to be more gentle in the use of some words, particularly when the one upon whom you are replying maybe one who has gone onto the Reckoning of Allāh, and His Favour, Mercy and Forgiveness. Then that person (who you are refuting), from another angle, may have influence, and may have a group who attach themselves to him with the fanatacism of the days of ignorance (not based upon knowledge). So because of this, and not because the one (you are refuting) has passed on to the Mercy of Allāh (عز وجل) I believe that he (Shaikh Rabīʿ) should be gentle in replying to those who have gone against our Salafi Methodology. As for the scholarly aspect, then he is in that, walḥamdullillāh, very strong.