The first standpoint: It is about the one against whom a scholar or scholars have passed a judgement that he is an innovator, whilst other scholars from Ahlus Sunnah like them do not differ (about this judgement). Beware, I say: Others from Ahlus Sunnah do not differ with them; so we accept their criticism against him (i.e. the one declared a man of bidah). We accept their speech and are cautious about him. So as long as a Sunni Scholar passed judgement against him and he was criticised by a Sunni scholar, whilst the rest of Ahlus Sunnah amongst the contemporaries of this scholar–his brothers and sons amongst the scholars–did not raise (an opposition), then his speech must be accepted. That is because this Sunni Scholar who criticised a man did not do so except based on an affair that is clear to him and established upon proof. This is something related to the religion of Allaah–the one who criticises or commends knows that he is responsible for what he says and for the ruling or judgement he gives. He knows that he is held accountable by Allaah (The Most High) even before the people question him.
The Second Standpoint: If this person who has been criticized by a scholar or scholars and they passed a judgement against him with what drops his status, and it became obligatory to be cautious of him; but then they are opposed by others who judged him to be trustworthy and that he is upon the Sunnah, or gave other judgements in opposition to the judgements of those other (scholars) who criticized him; then in this case, as long as these (scholars) and those (scholars) are upon the Sunnah and all of them are trustworthy and people of integrity in our view, we should look to the evidence. This is why they (i.e. the scholars) say:“The one who knows is a proof against the one who does not know.”
A criticizer who stated about such and such person that he is an innovator and a deviant, whilst producing evidence from the books of the criticized person or from his cassette tapes, or from the transmissions of the reliable narrators about him, then this obligates on us to accept his speech and abandon the (speech) of those who gave commendations in opposition to the one who criticized. That is because those who criticized him presented evidences that are hidden from the others due some reasons, or due to the fact that the one who commended did not read or hear (anything or something negative) about the criticized; rather he based his commendation upon what he knew about him previously and that he was upon the Sunnah. Therefore, this criticized person against whom evidence is established is truly declared unreliable and the proof is with the one who established the evidence. And it is incumbent upon the one who seeks the truth to follow the evidence and he does not seek to take a path to the right or the left, or saying: “I abstain of my own accord.” That is because we have not been obligated with this from the Salaf. Indeed, it is a prescribed obligation to accept the speech of the one who established the evidence. And the Sunni Scholar who opposed those who criticized (based on clear proofs) is excused and his status and honour are maintained in our eyes. We recognize what –by the will of Allaah–he possesses of virtue and exalted status.