Who establishes the proof against the innovators?

The questioner : You mentioned that... or we have come across it in the books of the Shaykhs of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on them), that they do not declare someone a disbeliever, nor do they hasten to declare a disbeliever one who commits an innovation, even if it is one that warrants disbelief, until knowledge reaches him and the proof is established against him. This point is often absent, meaning, from the minds of the brothers. One of them considers, or sees, that if he speaks with this innovator, whether he is an imam or not, and especially since they debate or argue with the imams in this matter regarding this innovation and explaining its contradiction with the religion of Islam in both its fundamentals and branches, you see the innovator arguing in this, and in many cases he does not care about the evidence or this discussion, and he remains as he is in his misguided innovation... that they have conveyed the message and established the proof against him. Is this discussion, or dialogue, or evidence, or advice that they presented considered sufficient in establishing the proof against him? This is what we want to know?

The Shaykh : This is also what we referred to in our previous speech when we said that one should not hasten to issue a fatwa of declaring someone a disbeliever, because we see today many of our young brothers in the call who have been afflicted with some arrogance and some claim of knowledge and learning. Therefore, I do not believe that every student of knowledge, let alone every scholar, can establish the proof against his opponent, no matter how deeply rooted that opponent is in misguidance. The student of knowledge, or the scholar, let us say the Salafi, may be sound in his creed, but he has no knowledge of the arguments that refute the claim of the opposing innovator, except that he has some things by which he was initially reassured of the soundness of the creed, and then a few of those evidences remained with him, whether few or many. So when he presents them to the innovators who oppose him, he thinks that he has established the proof, but that is not the case. This is first regarding our brothers, the students of knowledge. Second, what is the consequence of whether the proof was established or not, and whether the proof became clear to the opponent or not? One of two things follows: either one does not pray behind him, or one does not marry him or contract marriage with him, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), which is considered one of the basic principles in the Shari'ah: But do not hasten and cut off by saying that this person is a disbeliever because I established the proof against him, but deal with him practically as if he were actually a disbeliever: do not pray behind him, do not contract marriage with him, do not marry him... and so on. The issue of declaring a Muslim a disbeliever is known for its severity in Islam. For this reason, we advise our young brothers to respond to the final outcome, in case the proof was actually established, and to stay away from these innovators, especially since the Salaf used to warn against sitting with the innovators, particularly those known as scholars of kalam, meaning those who have speculative, rationalistic doubts that leave students of knowledge bewildered and unable to answer, because they do not have the broad knowledge and the strong, established intellect in the Shari'ah to be able to establish the proof against him, first by transmission, then by reason, as it is said in our region of Sham: "Stay away from evil and you will be safe."