In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.
The hizbiyyoon [proponents of illegal partisanship] will utter every ambiguity when desperately seeking to defend their deviated figureheads and mentors. You hear some of them seeking to cast doubt on the refutations written by Al-Allaamah Rabee Bin Haadee [may Allaah preserve him] against some of those figureheads who were found guilty of innovating principles in the religion of Allaah. So, instead of looking at the clear proofs, they follow their desires and cling to an ambiguity, saying, “Person A and Person B were contemporaries, so neither do we take a stance nor get involved in their dispute”. Indeed, this statement can either be utilised for truth or falsehood, and some of the illegal partisans utter this statement to deceive the unsuspecting seeker of truth. So, what is the response to this statement of theirs? Al-Allaamah Muqbil Bin Haadee Al-Waadi’ee [may Allaah have mercy on him] stated:
Jarh Al-Aqraan: Criticism carried out by contemporaries against one another is more credible than [criticism carried out by others against one and other]. That is because they [i.e. contemporaries] are more knowledgeable [about the affair of] their companions. It [i.e. Jarh Al-Aqraan] is accepted unless if it is known that there is rivalry and enmity between them [i.e. between two contemporaries] due to a worldly affair, [competition for] status or [due to being] mistaken in understanding and he [i.e. a contemporary] wishes to compel the other to his mistaken understanding [i.e. then in such a case the criticism is investigated]. 
The Shaikh [may Allaah have mercy upon him] also stated:
If the reason was due to rivalry or a worldly affair, then this (is something about which one should) hold back, or if the criticiser does not know (the reason) behind the criticism because it is required that he knows the reasons behind the criticism, or if he has (some) aim similar to that of these lowly people of the present day – such as Abu Riyyah and those who followed his path such as Ahmad Ameen. Likewise Al-Kawtharee, who authenticates (narrations) and passes judgements based on desires that narrations are weak, Muhammad Rasheed authenticates or (passes judgements on narrations as being) weak based on desires, and this is also this is (the case with) Jamaalud’deen Al- Afghaanee and Muhammad Abduh Al-Misriy, all these people and those who followed their path, their speech is neither accepted nor is it treated with honour.
Question to Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan [may Allaah preserve him]:
At present whenever a scholar refutes another (person) who erred, they say: This is speech of contemporaries, it will come to pass and will not be transmitted. What is your view regarding this principle and is it (applied) absolutely?
Answer: It is obligatory to clarify the truth and refute the error. We do not flatter anyone; we clarify the error and direct to the truth and our (concern) is not the importance of this one or that one. It is not permissible to keep quiet; because if we were to abandon (speaking) about this error, and that second error and that third error, the errors will become numerous and the people will think that it is the truth due to the silence of the scholars about it and will consider it as a proof. Therefore, clarification must be carried out especially when the one who erred is one followed or has leadership. And it is not to be said that errors are narrated and will come to pass; rather it should be said that it is narrated and refuted; because this is from sincerity to Allaah, His Book and His Messenger, and it is advice to the leaders of the Muslims. 
The extent of the evil of Jam’iyyah Ihyā at-Turāth of Kuwait – by Al-Allāmah Shaikh Muqbil Ibn Hādī al-Wādi’ī (rahimahullāh)
Imaam Abd Al-Azeez Bin Baz’s Refutation of Abd Al-Rahman Abd Al-Khaliq (Takfiri, Qutbi, Turathi)
 [المقترح في أجوبة بعض أسئلة المصطلح ] page: 103
 [إجابة السائل على أهمِّ المائل – page:401]
 Al-Ijaabaatul Muhimmah Fil Mashaakil Al-Mulimmah. Page:236