The following is take from Fadheelatu-Shaykh Abdul-Mushin al-‘Abbadd’s book al-Hathu ‘alaa Ittibaa’ is-Sunnati wat-Tahdheeri min al-Bida’i wa Bayaani Khatarihaa . This book came to reinforce the salafi manhaj (methodology) concerning how the people of the Sunnah are suppose to behave in their manhaj regarding warning and refuting and it came as a severe blow when his initial advise to the salafis was dismissed by the extremist at salafitalk and their leaders like spubs and troid.
So he says
“And close to the bid’a of testing the people by personalities is what arose during this time of a small band (fi’atun qaleelah) from Ahl is-Sunnah’s infatuation with the tajreeh of some of their brothers from Ahl is-Sunnah, and the tabdee’ of them, as well as what resulted from that of abandonment (hajr), severance of mutual relations (taqaatu’) between them, and cutting off the path of benefit from them. And that tajreeh and tabdee’, from it is what is built on thinking what is not an innovation (bid’ah) is a innovation. From the examples of that is that the two honorable shaikhs, ‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Baaz and Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, may Allah have mercy on them both, had delivered a verdict to a group (jamaa’ah) in favor of its entry into a matter, seeing the benefit in that entry. From those whom those two muftis did not please with it (i.e., the verdict) is that small band, for that group took exception of that. And the matter does not stop at this extent, rather the blame transfers to whoever cooperates with it in delivering lectures and he is described as one who liquefies the Salafee methodology (manhaj) although these two honorable sheikhs used to deliver lectures to this group by way of telephone.
From that also is the occurrence of warning from attending the lessons of an individual because he does not speak about so-and-so (fulaan al-fulaanee) or such-and-such group (al-jamaa’at al-fulaaniyyah). Arrogance may have taken possession of that individual from my students in the Faculty of Sharee’ah at the Islamic University who graduated from it in the year 1395-1396H, and his ranking was 104th from his group, their number reaching 119 graduates. He is not known for being occupied with knowledge, nor do I know of him having registered knowledge-based lessons, nor writings with respect to knowledge – big or small.
The bulk of his merchandise is tajreeh, tabdee’ and tahdheer against many from Ahl is-Sunnah. This jaarih does not reach the ankle of some of those who he disparages due to many of their benefits in their lessons, their lectures and their writings. And the amazement does not end when an intelligent person hears a tape containing a recording of a long telephone conversation between Madeenah and Algeria by him. In it, the one asked eats the flesh of many from Ahl is-Sunnah and in it, the one asking squanders his wealth without right. And the one asked about them may increase the number in this tape to thirty individuals, among them the minister (wazeer), the senior (kabeer) and the minor (sagheer), and among them a small band not mourned. Indeed, saved from this tape is whoever was not asked about in it but some of those who were saved from it were not saved from other tapes by him. Its whale is the network of Internet Information. What is obligatory upon him is to cease from eating the flesh of the scholars and students of knowledge. And what is obligatory upon the youth and the students of knowledge is that they not incline towards those tajreehaat and tabdee’aat that harm and do not benefit, and that they become occupied with beneficial knowledge that returns to them with good and praiseworthy outcome in this world and the hereafter.
al-Haafidh Ibn ‘Asaakir, may Allah have mercy on him, has said in his book, Tabyeenu Kadhib il-Muftaree (pg. 29),
“And know – O my brother! May Allah guide us and you to His pleasure (mardaah) and may He make us from those who dread Him and fear Him as He should be feared – that the flesh of the scholars, may Allah’s mercy be upon them, is poisonous and Allah’s custom with regards to tearing the curtains from their shortcomings is known.”
And I have mentioned in my treatise, Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnati bi Ahl is-Sunnah, a large sum of verses, ahaadeeth and narrations regarding guarding the tongue from the backbiting of Ahl is-Sunnah, especially the people of knowledge from them. And in spite of that, it did not please this jaarih and he described it as not being fit for distribution. He warned against it and whoever distributed it. There is no doubt that whoever becomes acquainted with this jaarih and studies the treatise will find that this ruling is in one valley and the treatise is in another valley, and that the matter is just as the poet said:
The eye may deny the sun’s light due to an inflammation (conjunctivitis)
And the mouth deny the taste of water due to an illness
As for the jaarih student’s statement for the treatise, Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnati bi Ahl is-Sunnah: “So for example, regarding speech that the methodology of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz and the methodology of Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaimeen are contrary to the methodology of others from Ahl is-Sunnah, this is a mistake, no doubt. He means they did not increase in the number of refutations but they would refute the transgressor, this, if correct, differs from the methodology of Ahl is-Sunnati wal-Jamaa’ah, and it is an attack (ta’n) on the two shaikhs in reality and on others of whom it is possible that this speech can be said about.”
So the answer to it is from (a number of) angles:
The first angle: is that it is not in the treatise that Shaikh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Baaz, rahimahullah, did not increase in the number of refutations, rather his refutations are many. It has been mentioned in the treatise (pg. 51), “That the refutation should be with kindness (rifq), gentleness (leen) and a strong desire (raghbatun shadeedah) for the welfare of the mistaken person, where the mistake is clear and evident. One should refer back to the refutations of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy on him, in order to benefit from them with respect to the way that the refutation of them should be done.”
The second angle: is that I did not consider mentioning the methodology of Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, may Allah have mercy on him, with respect to refutations, for indeed, I do not know of writings – small or big – by him with respect to refutations. I asked one of his students who were closely connected to him about that. So he informed me that he does not know of anything by him of refutations. And that does not diminish him, for indeed, he was occupied with the establishment of knowledge, its distribution and writing.
The third angle: is that the methodology of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy on him, differs from the methodology of the jaarih student and those who resemble him because the methodology of the shaikh is characterized by kindness, gentleness and the desire for the benefit of the one being advised (mansooh) and helping him to the path of security (tareeq is-salaamah). As for the jaarih and whoever resembles him, then they are characterised by harshness (shiddah), alienation (tanfeer) and warning (tahdheer). Many of those who they disparage in their tapes, Shaikh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez would praise them, call them and urge them upon calling (da’wah) and teaching the people. And he would urge upon benefitting from them and taking from them. 
In short, I did not attribute the lack of refutation of others to Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy on him. As for Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, then I did not consider him with mention with respect to the affair of refutations and that what the jaarih mentioned corresponding to what is in the treatise. And it is the clearest of indications of his stumbles and his lack of certainty. And if this was from him with respect to written speech, then how is the situation regarding what there is no writing for it?!
As for the statement of the treatise’s jaarih, “I, in fact, have read the treatise and I know the position of Ahl is-Sunnah regarding it and hope that you saw the refutations by some of the scholars and shaikhs. And I do not think the refutations stop at that. Certainly, there are those who will refute also, because it is just as the poet says:
A presenting brother came, his spear
(jaa’a shaqeequn ‘aaridun rumhuhu)
Indeed, your uncle’s children, they have spears
(inna baniyya ‘ammika feehim rimaah)
So: ‘aaridun (presenting), what is correct is ‘aaridan (which changes the first line to: “A brother came presenting his spear”).
So the answer: is that Ahl as-Sunnah, those who he meant, they are the ones whose methodology differs from the methodology of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez, may Allah have mercy on him, which I will point out shortly. He, with this speech, incites the determinations of whoever does not know them to discredit the treatise after he incited whoever he knows. And I, in fact, did not present a spear. On the contrary, I presented an advice that the jaarih and whoever resembles him did not accept, because the advice for the one being advised resembles the remedy for the disease. And from the ailing are those who use the remedy, even if it was bitter, because of what he hopes of benefit. And from those who are advised are those whose desire turns them away from the advice, not accepting it. Rather, they warned from it. And I ask Allah to grant the people success (tawfeeq), guidance (hidaayah) and security (salaamah) from the devil’s deception (kaid) and his deceit.
Three have joined the disparaging student: two in Makkah and Madeenah, they are both from my students in the Islamic University of Madeenah. The first of them graduated in the year 1384-1385H and the second in the year 1391-1392H. As for the third, then (he is) in the extreme south of the country. The second and the third have described whoever distributes the treatise as being a mubtadi’ and this is tabdee’ by wholesale and the public at large. And I do not know if they know or if they do not know that the scholars and students who they do not attribute to innovation. And I hope for my supply of observations from them that they built this general heretication upon, if they exist, for further examination.
Shaikh ‘Abdir-Rahmaan as-Sudais, the imaam and khateeb of al-Masjid il-Haraam, has a sermon (khutbah) delivered from al-Masjid il-Haraam’s minbar. In it, he warned from Ahl is-Sunnah’s backbiting of one another. We should turn the glances to it, for indeed, it is important and beneficial.
And I ask Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, that He guides the people to that which He is pleased with, to comprehension of the religion, establishment upon the truth and being occupied with that which concerns, away from that which does not concern. Indeed He is the Guardian of that and the Master over it. And may Allah send prayers, peace and blessings upon our Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his family and companions.
 In other words Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd has declared here is that it is a heresy for people to test other people’s adherence to salafiyyah based on the personality of another individual since the basic fundamental regarding this is that this is the actions of the hizbis (biased partisans) and those who view the people of the sunnah under this hizbi context are themselves hizbis for being involved in this bida.
 He is referring to those who followed Faalih al-Harbi which was Spubs, Troid, and the partisan blind followers who followed them like Salafitalk, and later on he adds Shaykh Rabee, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree, and Ahmad bin Yahya an-Najmee into this “band” of fitnah makers may Allah forgive these shiyookh, particularly Shaykh Najmee for he was the senior most scholar of all of those mentioned and he has passed away recently.
 This infatuation is a description of a disease in the heart of these individuals where their only thrill under their claim to salafiyyah is to see people destroyed through refutations and criticism. This infatuation has resulted in virtually forming and centering their tawheed on “the salafiyyah of an individual” rather than actual tawheed
 Another character trait of the hizbis who act like this is to assume something as an innovation when it is not an innovation. And how this can come about is due to a confounded ignorance that they have and this ignorance is further preserved when these biased partisans cut off all the avenues and roads to knowledge by declaring every person who can offer it to the ignorant as “an innovator” or in current times “he is not clear” which was another innovation which Shaykh Khaalid ar-Raddadee refuted and particularly he refuted Spubs for being the advocates of this bid’i theory that they brought into the salafi manhaj.
 The shaykh was more than likely referring to Ihyaa at-Turaath
 This direct mentality is reflective of the entire framework of hizbiyyah that Spubs and Troid educated their blind followers upon may Allah guide them and us.
 Translator’s note: Here the shaikh, may Allah preserve him, is referring to none other than Faalih bin Naafi’ al-Harbee. Throughout this portion of his reply, he refers to Shaikh Faalih as the disparager, al-Jaarih. .
 And just like Faalih, spubs and troid followed suit in this direct behavioral syndrome that turns the actual salafi off from them and whatever they have to offer and deceives the gullible ignorant who have no clue about what the salafi manhaj is.
 Thus it is preferable on the shaykhs words to stay away from dealing with those whose methodology entails this methodology explained by the shaykh, and those who defend this methodology
 The misguided Faalih, refuted the shaykh’s book, and those who went along with his misguidance was spubs and troid and have never recanted to this day for it and thus their dhalaala (misguidance) and corruption remains upon their heads until they recant, and part of the salafi manhaj of recanting when it entails the effect of others is the official three actions that a person must do for tawbah ALONG with openly declaring to the public their guilt and wrongdoing for that action.
 Meaning those who followed Faalih al-Harbi like spubs and troid
 Thus in a nutshell, Abdul-Muhsin has negated those who act in this anarchic behavior to be different, opposite, and on a different manhaj than Shaykh Bin Baz, an to that extent the rest of the salafi shiyookh of ahlu-sunnah.
 Translator’s note: This quote taken from Faalih can be found on one of the Ghulaat Boards. This post was put up by Spubs entitled, “Speech of Shaykh Faalih on ‘Rifqan Ahl us-Sunnah…’”.
 Translator’s note: The two referred to here are Shaikh Rabee al-Madkhalee and Shaikh ‘Ubaid al-Jaabiree, respectively. They both collaborated in spreading this corrupt methodology to the youth
 Translator’s note: This third person being referred to is Shaikh Ahmad bin Yahyaa an-Najmee.
 Refer to footnote #2 to find these statements by Shaikh ‘Ubaid and Shaikh Ahmad.