In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy
NB: Instead of addressing the subject matter of boycotting too soon, we now intend to present few more posts on the subject matter of refutations before that series. The topic at present will be divided into two parts [Part 7 & 7.1]
To proceed: Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli carried on his argument on the subject matter of refutation saying that refutation against the Mukhaalif (i.e. the one in opposition to the truth) is from the Furood Al-Kifaayaat (i.e. obligations that when fulfilled by some of the Muslims, the rest are absolved of responsibility); so if one of the scholars fulfils (the refutation) and the Legislated Islamic goal is accomplished by way of the refutation against the Mukhaalif and the Ummah is warned against him, the rest the scholars are absolved of responsibility.
Then Dr Ibraaheem stated that one of the mistakes that are rife is that when a scholar refutes a Mukhaalif, or issues a Fatwa as a warning against a mistake, many of the students of knowledge who ascribe to the Sunnah would seek from (other) students and the scholars to clarify their stance towards that refutation or fatwa, rather the affair has reached a state in which even the small students of knowledge and the common people are asked to determine their stance towards the refuter and the one refuted….
Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi responded to this statement of Dr Ibraaheem and unveiled the realities behind this statement, saying that if the Legislated Islamic goal behind a refutation carried out by a single person is reached, the rest of the Muslims (i.e. other scholars and students) are absolved of responsibility.
However, if the legislated Islamic goal is not reached by way of the refutation carried out by one person (i.e. a scholar or student) against a Mukhaalif, due to the fact that the Mukhaalif has become obstinate; supported by people who claim to be people of knowledge and are pleased with his oppressive false refutations against that scholar who refutes Bidah and Futilities, whilst other scholars keep quiet and have not clarified the mistake and futilities of this Mukhaalif; rather this Mukhaalif also utilises the silence of those scholars and seeks to delude the people that those keeping quiet are with him and supporting him, and that had he been upon falsehood, they would have pursued him; then it becomes clearly obligatory upon those scholars who are keeping quiet to clarify the truth for the people. They have to speak in order to aid the truth and put a stop to this fitnah and differing, which occurred as a result of their silence and thus preventing the Legislated Islamic goal of the refutation to be reached, which would have absolved the Muslims of this responsibility.
Therefore, in such a case, it is not permissible to say that the obligation of refutation is removed from the rest of the Muslims. If the Legislated Islamic goal goal is not reached by the refutation carried out by one person or ten people amongst the scholars, the rest of the scholars are not absolved of responsibility until they take up the cause or encourage others to fulfil this goal-those through whom the fitnah will be ended and so that they can manifest the truth to the people, the students of knowledge and the common people, just as they were exposed to the falsehood (of that Mukhaalif, deviant or innovator).
[Bayaan Maa Fee Naseehati Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli Minal Khalal Wal-Ikhlaal’ (pages 60-61)]Abridged and paraphrased]