Heresiology, whilst necessary, is dangerous. Rebuttals of erroneous aqida (tenets of faith) positions are necessary. The danger lies in the approach, the means and manner in which such things are conducted. There is also a major danger in the heresiologist’s own limited reading and understanding of the the issue at hand or the person they are investigating. Such things as context and situation are disregarded. They first start with sincere intentions and apply themselves to issues that need clarifying and make rebuttals of the positions of the heretical and deviant sects and this is of immense benefit to the lay folk who are the most affected by these issues. Once clarified, the heresiologist should stop there and move on to other things. But often times what next happens is that a counter-rebuttal is made, and then a counter-counter rebuttal has to be made and the ego merri-go-round is started. And so what happens next is more ego-driven than necessity driven. YouTube is replete with angry mullahs and young hot heads, barely out of school, challenging one another in the most ungracious of ways. Once the ego has firmly rooted itself in such a discourse, what happens next is like a cancer, it becomes self-destructive. Those who have become modern-day inquisitors then turn on each other, to see who is not on the “manhaj”, who is not “Sunni” enough for their liking. No one is spared, the great ulama of the present are fair game and you see them hounding their own scholars and trying to prove that their own scholars are heretics. It is only a matter of time before they start digging the graves of their own scholars.