In the name of Allāh The Most Merciful Bestower of Mercy. May the Peace and Exultations be upon the Messenger of Allāh, his family, companions and supporters.
As to follows:
I have been asked, "How do you respond to the one who says, 'The criticism of an ‘ālim against a shaykh by saying he is a liar or troublemaker constitutes a detailed criticism and thus takes precedence over a praise without restriction?'"
I responded by saying,
This is not unrestrictedly the case. The rebuttal of this speech is from a (number) of angles:
Firstly: The criticism taking precedence over the praise is with the condition that the criticism is confirmed to be true upon the one who is being criticized. If it is the case that it is not confirmed true, it would then have no effect.
Secondly: The (term) "troublemaker" carries a multitude of meanings which may not be with and in itself an (actual criticism) or that which an individual is disparaged by, so this is NOT detailed.
Thirdly: A detailed criticism that was refuted and rejected by a reputable ‘ālim who clarified the lack of effectiveness/validity (of said criticism) does not take precedence in this case.
Fourthly: A detailed criticism, if it is launched against some of the salafies, there MUST be brought forth (proof and evidence) and that which clearly expresses their (actual) obstinance and persistence upon falsehood.
As far as criticizing a salafy due to a mere mistake without there being any persistence upon falsehood, obstinance, or clear exposing of his playing with the truth, then this is the criminally oppressive ḥaddādy minhaj.