One of their distinguishing features also is considering all those who fall in bid’ah mubtadee’ (heretics) and this is a false statement that cannot hold water. Not everyone who committed an act of bid’ah (innovation) is labeled mubtadee’ as not everyone who committed an act of kufr is labeled kaafir.
Scholars upon the noble sunnah of our Prophet agreed that a person who committed an act of Kufru or bid’ah (which is agreed to be an act of kufr or bid’ah), will not be specifically labeled kaafir or mubtadee’ until certain conditions have been fulfilled and his deed will be determined an act of kufr or bid’ah but not his personality yet. We will make a seperation between an act and the doer of an action.
Sheikh Ibn Taemiyyah said in his Majmuu’ Fataawa volume 12 page 498:
“Not everyone who committed an act of kufr is determined a kaafir outrightly, until certain conditions are fulfilled. His actions can be considered kufr but not his personality.”
He also said in the same reference:
“Many of the salaf and those who came after them (khalaf) have said and committed acts of bid’ah, maybe for weak ahaadith they considered sound, or they misconstrued certain verses or evidences that did not get to them or for their personal view that is wrong, and it was not known that anyone labeled them mubtadee”
Sheikh Ibn Uthaimin also said:
“An act maybe bid’ah while it’s doer will not be considered mubtadee, either for a certain excuse or interpretation or others.”
“Mazeelul Iblees fii ahkaami ala naas page 104”.
And Sheikh Naasirudeen Al-Albaani said in his thesis of Salaatu Taraawih page 35 and his audio tape silsilatu huda wa nuur clip 850:
“If someone opposes a verse of the Qur’an or Hadeeth, it is not compulsory to follow him upon his mistakes, secondly, we will not declare him an heretic for opposing a nass (textual evidence), even if his action is bid’ah and I am differentiating between the say (someone committed bid’ah or Kufr and someone is mubtadee and kaafir).”
And this means we do not declare someone kaafir based on his interpretation(ta’weel) of the verse of the Qur’an or Hadeeth, if his interpretation is far fetched, then we say such interpretation is false.
For example, the person who says Abubakr was not the one with the Prophet in the cave will not be declared kaafir even though his interpretation is wrong. And that is because Allah did not explicitly mention the name of Abubakr in the verse إذ هما في الغار, Allah used pronoun همـا(both of them) and He does not specifically mention Muhammad and Abubakar, but we know it was Muhammad and Abubakr based on authentic hadeeth affirming that. If Allah had mentioned Muhammad and Abubakar explicitly, then the one who interpreted it to another people – after explanations and excuses – may be declared kaafir.
Also, Sheikh Al Albaani had to defend one of his teachers, Sheikh Rasheed Rido when he opined the Prophet was not enchanted and Sheikh Muqbil Waadi’ee wrote a book in respect of that to refute him and those who did not believe the prophet was enchanted. Sheikh Albani said: “We do not defend personalities or any group but we are sure this subject matter is subjected to ijtihād and I believe sheikh Rasheed Rido has offered to Islam and the ummah many great services”.
Also, if a narration is lone(ahad), it is possible its afflicted with lies or doubts and it may not. And anyone who belie an Ahad narration cannot be considered kaafir unlike the mutawaatir, if his stance on ahaad is far-fetched, his interpretation can only be considered false.
And those who consider non aqeedah issues as aqeedah issues need to understand this. Issues of Aqeedah should only be established with a rigorous proof without any ambiguity. Any iota of ambiguity could not nullify the Qur’an or establish reality.
Similarly, all the arguments that Ahl sunnah accepts Khabaru Wahid to establish Aqeedah are false. There is no consensus even amongst Ahl sunnah in accepting solitary narrations ( khabar Wahid or AHadith Ahad) in Aqeedah. And if you read books making the general statement, upon verification and application you will see it as not the fact. So solitary hadith are subjected to speculations which cannot deconstruct a known reality of deen.
It is possible the issue with ahad lies with those who narrated and narrated till it get to the fundamental. But if such incidence is reported by many sahabah, Tabieen , Tabi Tabieen then there would be no room for doubt (Zaniy). That is why very many verifying scholars say Ahad hadith is suitable for Ahkaam (rulings) and not Aqeedah. So if somebody doubt the veracity of the report, he is not sinful or a mubtadee. Eg Aaisha radiya Allahu anhaa rejected the lone report that the deceased will be punished for the cry of his relatives.
Aqeedah must be based on certainty, there are Ahad hadith in the past which was considered authentic and suitable for Aqeedah, but later scholars like sheikh Albani said it is weak. So Aqeedah should not be subjected to flip flop! If an Ahad hadith on Aqeedah is strongly backed up by Quranic verse then it becomes distinctive (qat’ee dilaalah) and not zaniy, but if several Quranic verses disapprove the possibility of the ahad, then such ahad cannot be used to establish an aqeedah ruling. So, those who label others on superfluous issues should repent and seek forgiveness.
Extracted from pages 113 – 116 of the book “Salafiyyah On A Grand Scale”