The new doubt of some of the Sa'aafiqah, "The court case is overturned, but who will overturn the ruling of Sheikh Rabee?"
Sheikh Usamah Al Utaybi said:
First: Shaykh Rabee is a salafi scholar. Likewise, he's human. He errs at times and is correct at times. He is not infallible. Thus, if he makes a ruling, it is either correct or incorrect. If it's correct, acceptance of it is binding; however, if it is incorrect, rejection of it is binding. So, is his ruling that Shaykh Muhammad ibn Haadi is more despicable than the Haddadis correct or incorrect?
That which the scholars and students of knowledge among the Salafis have agreed upon, from the knowledge that has reached us concerning the issue, is that it is incorrect. No one among the people of knowledge has made that determination against him (i.e. Shaykh Muhammad), and that is if that is authentically attributed to Shaykh Rabee.
Therefore it is overturned from its very foundation as there is no cause for it.
For the correct ruling, there exist proofs and evidences. The incorrect ruling also has proofs and evidences elucidating its falsity. The ruling attributed to Shaykh Rabee of his description of a scholar from the major scholars of the Sunnah as "More despicable than the Haddadis": Where is its proof?
The majority are the Sa'aafiqah's muddling surrounding the issue of qadhf, thereafter the issue of splitting, and thereafter they mentioned knowledge-based affairs (where they alleged mistakes from Shaykh Muhammad). This was accompanied with an abundance of lies, deceit, plotting, treachery, and inflating issues.
Thus we examined the issue of qadhf. As a result, we discovered the Sa'aafiqah's clear oppression and their inventing lies against Allah, His legislation, and His religion. Moreover we found extremism as pertains to the issue similar to the extremism of the Shiite, Sufis, and the excessive ones among the people of innovation and misguidance.
The ruling of a scholar at times is based on incorrect information. Consequently its repeal is by way of clarification of the incorrect nature of this information, just like what occurred with Shaykh Ubayd when he issued the verdict to make qunoot against Haftar (of Libya) based on an incorrect report that a ministry subject to the authority of the governmental body ordered such. Hence his verdict was dropped due to the dropping of that which it was built upon.
So Shaykh Rabee has built his ruling against Shaykh Muhammad - if that statement is authentically attributed to him - on the lies of the Sa'aafiqah and their instigation. Thus if the condition of these motives are made clear, or that which Shaykh Rabee based his ruling upon, then his ruling would be overturned legislatively and intellectually without any dispute among the people of knowledge.
The scholars of hadith do not accept speech against whoever's integrity and trustworthiness is widely known, except with explicit evidence. Til this very day of ours, Shaykh Rabee has no evidence with him, not even an atoms weight. As a result, his ruling is overturned due to lack of proof. On the contrary, its reality is that it is based on a mirage.
The scholar, if he passes a ruling against a person and it is a valid ruling, and thereafter that which made that ruling binding (now) ceases, in that case his ruling is overturned in its entirety. Hence, if our ruling against a person is that he is a disbeliever on account of him being a Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian, or Nusayri and then he accepts Islam, and his Islam is sightly, does that ruling become nullified or does it remain?
There is no Muslim that will say the ruling remains, even though the cause (for the ruling) has ceased.