Is it valid to call the critique of scholars and preachers "al-Jarh wa al-Ta'deel" (discrediting and accrediting), especially with what has resulted from this approach in declaring the majority of contemporary scholars and preachers as innovators and misguided? And who is in a worse state: he who declares the transgressors to be disbelievers, or he who declares scholars and preachers to be transgressors, innovators, and misguided?

The science of al-Jarh wa al-Ta’deel (discrediting and accrediting) in its specific sense pertains to the narrators of hadiths and transmitters of traditions, and does not include critiquing preachers and scholars after the end of the era of narration. As for its general sense, which is to clarify the condition of those from whom knowledge is taken to distinguish who is suitable, there is no dispute in terminology.

As for the comparison between declaring transgressors as disbelievers (takfir al-fussaq) and declaring scholars as transgressors (tafsiq al-ulama), the more sinful and dangerous approach is that of the Khawarij, who declare the perpetrator of a major sin a disbeliever, thereby deeming his blood, honor, and property permissible in this world and judging him to abide eternally in Hellfire in the Hereafter. This even includes people of knowledge, virtue, and righteousness.