Table of Contents
Imām Abd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) was asked:[1]
Is it obligatory to mentioned both the good and the bad points about the Innovators and their books, or just their bad points?
The Shaykh (رحمه الله) replied:
It is well known from the statements of the people of knowledge that they criticise the bad points in order to warn (others), and also they explain the errors in which they (those who erred) fell into, again for the purpose of warning against them.
As for what is good in them, then that is known (from them already), and such good is accepted.[2] However, the purpose is to warn from their errors, (such as) the Jahmiyyah, the Muʿtazilah, the Rāfiḍah and what is similar to them.
However, if the need should arise to explain what they have of the truth, then it is explained. When someone asks, ‘What do they have with them of the truth? In what matters do they agree with Ahl us-Sunnah’, and the one who is asked knows this, then he makes it clear.
However, the greatest goal is to explain the falsehood that is with them, so that the questioner can take caution and so that he does not incline towards them.
Then another questioner said:
There are some people who enjoin ‘counterbalancing’ (al-Muwāzanah), meaning that when you criticise an innovator to warn people from him, that it is obligatory upon you to mention his good points so that you do not treat him unjustly?
The Shaykh replied:
No, it is not necessary, it is not necessary. And this is why when you read the books of Ahl al-Sunnah you will find the purpose behind them to warn. Read in the book of al-Bukhārī ‘Khalq Afʿāl al-‘Ibād’ and ‘Kitāb al-Adab’ (the Book of Manners) in the Saḥīḥ and ‘Kiāb al-Sunnah of ʿAbd Allāh bin Aḥmad and ‘Kiāb al-Tawhīd’ of Ibn Khuzaymah and the refutation of ʿUthmān bin Saʿīd al-Dārimī against Ahl al-Bidʿah... and other such books.
They mention this for the purpose of warning from their falsehood and the intent is not to enumerate their good points. The intent is to warn from their falsehood. And their good points have no value in relation to one who disbelieves, when his innovation makes him a disbeliever, his good deeds are nullified and when it does not make him a disbeliever then he is in a precarious situation.
The intent is to expose the errors and deviations, which it is necessary to warn against.
Shaykh Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) clarified that it is already known and understood that innovators and deviants have good with them, everybody knows that, and it is accepted that they will benefit from this good in the Hereafter, so long as their innovation does not entail disbelief.
However, in the context of warning and refuting, then it is not from the correct methodology to mention their good.
The Shaykh also explained, that if there is a need to explain what they have of the truth, then it can be explained. But this is when someone specifically asks for clarification on points of agreement and disagreement between Ahl al-Sunnah and the individual or group being refuted, seeking clarification through that so he is clear, from a knowledge point of view, between what distinguishes the people of truth from the people of falsehood.
Shaykh Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) was asked a similar question:[3]
Question:
When we reject the errors and innovations of one who has an effect upon the people and whose innovation, especially in creed, is spread and he exaggerates therein, when we reject innovation, some people oppose us with the claim that truth demands from us the mention of [both] good deeds and errors, and that the effort of [such a person] in daʿwah and his precedence [in that respect] prevents his refutation being done openly.
We hope for an explanation of the truth methodology, is mention of the good points necessary? And does precedence in daʿwah do away with the mention of his errors which are know and spread between the people?
The Shaykh’s response:
It is obligatory upon the people of knowledge to reject open innovations and sins with Sharīʿah evidences, and through encouragement and discouragement with ways that are good. It is not necessary alongside that to mention the good points of the innovator.
However, when the one commanding good and prohibiting evil mentions [the good points] to the one from whom innovation occurred or the one shown rejection, in order to remind him of his good deeds, to encourage him to repent, then that is good and from the ways of acceptance of daʿwah and turning to repentance. May Allāh grant success to all.
Here Shaykh Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) distinguishes between open rejection of errors wherein one does not mention the good points and the situation when one is addressing the one being refuted for his errors in person. In this second situation, if you were to remind him of the good he has done, as an ecouragement to repent and turn back from his errors, then that is something good.
Shaykh Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) was also asked:[4]
Question:
The innovators, when are their good points not to be mentioned?
The Shaykh (رحمه الله) answered:
Whoever proclaims innovation, he is warned against, you do not [words unclear] the good points.
Whoever proclaims innovation, he is warned against, you do not [words unclear] the good points.
Because the objective is to warn from evil, and not to explain the good points.
This is a very explicit question and answer in that the good points of the innovator are not mentioned when warning people from his evil as the objective is to warn from evil.
By mentioning the good points, the objective is weakened, compromised or even overturned, since the people will be either left in confusion, or convinced that there is still good in that person that can be benefited from. Thus, while you set out to warn from him, you’ve actually justified the people remaining attached to him.