Very lastly, ya ikhwaan, we would like to address a shubha, a doubt, promoted by some individuals, either because of them being ignorant; and if they are ignorant then they can be taught, inshaAllaah; or either because they are from the People of Desires, and if this is their case then, ya’ani, what can be done with them?
It is those who say ‘You all have double standards. If a detailed criticism takes place, then why don’t you take the criticism of Shaykh Wasee’ullaah ‘Abbās (hafidhahullah) regarding Maktabatu-Salafiyyah, and Abū Khadījah Abdul Waahid.’ This is the Shubha that they say, and I’ve heard it more than once. One time I heard it in Newark, one time I heard it in Camden, and maybe I heard it another time besides that. But this is the Shubha that you find individuals, they say.
So in response to this doubt I say, first and foremost, as Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al Bukhārī he mentions in his lessons of ‘Dawaabat ul jarh wa ta’deel’
He says, Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al Bukhārī (hafiẓahullāh),
‘That the principle that the Jarh takes precedence over the praise and the principle that the criticism is not accepted except if it is detailed, then this affair is not unrestricted; rather, the one whose ‘adaala, whose trustworthiness and truthfulness has been established, (meaning upon the people of knowledge), a general criticism regarding them will not take precedence over a praise. As for the one whose trustworthiness and truthfulness has not been established and he has been criticised by a Scholar, that criticism takes precedence absolutely, even if it was a general criticism, (meaning not detailed) and this is if it comes from one who has knowledge of the reasons of Jarh (criticism)’
Meaning what? We will explain this. It means that one cannot come and make general statement of criticism against one whose ‘adaala, ya’ani, their trustworthiness and truthfulness has been established, amongst the scholars and is praised by them. Rather, any criticism against this type of person must be what? In detail. Also, the one whose ‘adaala is not established and not verified with the People of Knowledge, and the criticism comes regarding them, from one knowledgeable from the affairs of Jarh, then it is accepted, even if it is general.
This principle is important. Why is this? Because if anyone can make a general statement of criticism against one whose ‘adaala has already been verified and established, then this leaves the door wide open for anyone to be spoken against and criticised; and this is what occurred with who? Faaleh al Harabee, who Shaykh Rabee’ (hafiẓahullāh) he criticised. As he would criticise those, who their ‘adaala was established amongst the People of Knowledge, but he failed to explain the reason of criticism. He would say, ‘fulaan hizbee, fulaan mubtadee” , the one who is known forSunnah for trustworthiness and truthfulness.
The ‘Ulema, they did not accept that from him. Rather they described this with al ghuloo’, with extremism.
So our brothers at Maktabus-Salafiyyah, in Birmingham, they are praised amongst the Scholars, from them Shaykh Rabee’, and Shaykh ‘Ubaid, and Shaykh Muhhammad ibn Hādī al Madkhalī.
So the general statement of Shaykh Wasee’ullaah ‘Abbās (hafidhahullah), for example like knowledge isn’t taken from them, or they are ignorant, it isn’t accepted from him. This statement isn’t accepted from him, because this is a general claim, whilst they have‘adaala amongst the Scholars. That is from one aspect.
Imām Bukhaari (raḥimahullāh), he mentions in his book 'Juzz al Qiraa’ah'h, he said,
‘Many people have not escaped someone speaking ill of them, and people speaking about others regarding their honour and their person, the Scholars did not turn to any of this speech, except if it is coupled with proofs and evidences, and their ‘adaala was not tarnished except when there were proofs and evidences.’
So any general speech like this, from Shaykh Wasee’ullaah (hafiẓahullāh), is not accepted.
So a person may come and say, ‘Well Shaykh Wasee’ullaah, he clarified in detail the reason why they are criticised.’ He said ‘They speak about Jamee’at Ahlil Ḥadīth,' which is a Jam’ee'ah that began in Hind, in India. An organisation, and they have centres in England and other places around the world, from that Green Lane Mosque which is there in Birmingham.
So one may say, ya’ani ‘The Shaykh, he clarified, or he detailed this criticism.’ We also say in response to thisShubha; the Scholars mention, ya ikhwaan, the conditions of when the criticism takes place over the praise. It has three conditions;
Number one: That the criticism must be detailed, and this was previously explained,
Number two: That the criticism must be that which a person is criticised for.
Because Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al Bukhārī, he said'When you ponder over some criticisms, in reality it is not a criticism.’ And Khateeb al Baghdaadee brings a whole chapter in his book 'Al Kifaaya' about those who are criticised with things that does not necessitate a person being criticised. And the third condition that they say;
That another scholar that specialises in Jarh, he is a naaqid, that he does not refute that detailed criticism with another detailed proof.
So after bringing these conditions, yaa ikhwaan, in which the detailed Jarh, criticism takes precedence over the praise, we say that the statement of Shaykh Wasee’ullaah, that the brothers at Salafi Publications speak ill of Green Lane Mosque and Ahlul Ḥadīth, thatjamee’ah from Hind, and that they have centres in England, then this is not a Jarh which is jaarih this is not a criticism which they can be criticised for. Why is this? Because they have Salaf in this. They have Salaf who preceded them in this, because Shaykh ‘Ubayd, he criticised this Jamee’ah, and even Shaykh Muqbil (raḥimahullāh) he criticised this Jamee’ah, this organisation. So if this clear yaa ikhwaan, it will be clear to the Seeker of Truth, that the Salafi’s do not have double standards, as it relates to the detailed Jarh.
That which Shaykh Rabee’ criticised Taahir, and Shadeed, and before them Abū Muslimah for, and their likes, are because of matters that go against the Salafi ‘Aqīdah and Manhaj, and let alone Shaykh Rabee’ being firmly grounded in this science, and we’ve heard something from that from the People of Knowledge. On the contrary, that which Shaykh Wasee’ullaah said about our brothers at Maktabas-Salafiyyah, and Abū Khadījah, then this is not a Jarh that removes his ‘adaala, and their ‘adaala which is established amongst the Scholars of our time.
I ask Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) to make us from those who cling on to the Methodology of the Salaf, in statement and action and belief, and to give us ikhlaas in the religion of Islām, and to protect us from fitan, that which is apparent from it and that which is hidden, and I ask Allaah to make us from the ghurabaa’, the strangers who have come with the praiseworthy description of the statement Messenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam),
‘Islām started as something strange, and it will return strange as it began, so tooba for the ghurabaa’