Table of Contents
Imām Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, the Muḥaddith of the Era, was asked:[1]
Questioner:
The truth is our Shaykh that our brothers or those youth have brought many (issues) together and amongst them is their saying:
“That it is necessary for anyone who wishes to speak about an Innovator, whose innovation and war against the Sunnah has become apparent, or about one who is not like that but who has erred in issues connected to the manhaj of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah – that no one should speak in these matters except when one also mentions all of his good points.”
And this is what they call this principle, “al-Muwāzanah” (counterbalancing) between the good and bad points. Many books and small works (have now) been written in this regard by those who hold onto this viewpoint, that it is necessary to adopt the methodology of the earlier people in criticising and that it is necessary to mention both the good and the bad points.
So is this principle to be taken absolutely, or are their circumstances in which this principle does not apply? We desire a detailed explanation from you regarding this matter, may Allaah bless you.
Imām al-Albānī:
The detailed (explanation) is: And every good lies in following the Salaf. So did the Salaf used to do this?
Questioner:
May Allāh protect you, our Shaykh. They use as evidence certain (textual) statements such as the statements of our Scholars concerning the Shīʿah for example, that “So and so is reliable and trustworthy (thiqah) in hadeeth, but a vile Raafidi”. They use statements like this as evidence. And then they desire to build the complete upon them, without at the same time looking at the thousands of statements in which there only occurs, “Liar”, “Abandoned”, “Vile”.
Imām al-Albānī:
This is the way of the Innovators. When a scholar of ḥadīth speaks about a righteous man who is a scholar and a jurist, saying about him, “He is poor in his memory”, does he also say, “He is a Muslim, and he is righteous and he is a jurist, and he is one who ought to be referred to in matters of deriving evidences for the Sharīʿah rulings (from the texts).” Allāhu Akbar! The truth is that the aforementioned principle is very important [but] it comprises a number of very important subsidiary matters (finer details) relevant to our times.
From where [did they derive this] that when the circumstance arises for explaining the mistakes of a Muslim, whether he is a caller [dāʿiyah] or not, that it is necessary for a lecture in which his good deeds - from their beginning to their end are mentioned? Allāhu Akbar!! A strange thing!! By Allāh! A strange thing!”
When the figureheads of the political activists upon the methodology of the Khārijites, such as Sayyid Quṭb, Ḥasan al-Bannā and al-Mawdūdī were being criticised by some amongst the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, those upon their teachings began to devise these principles in order to shield these innovators from criticism and from their books, teachings and ideologies being warned against and abandoned. And they presented these doubts (in the form of these principles) from the angle of “justice” in that if you do not mention the good of the one disparaged, you have committed injustice.
This opposes the way of the Salaf and the way of the Muḥaddithīn and this what scholars such as Shaykh Rabiʿ made clear in a detailed way with extensive evidences in his various writings, being supported by the Major Scholars of the time.