A DIALOGUE OVER LIVESTREAM was circulated recently involving a person from Switzerland aligned with ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī asking questions about Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī. During the course of this dialogue numerous doubts and misunderstandings surfaced connected to the Salafī methodology and the way of the scholars in preserving the integrity of its boundaries in the field of criticism. Some people notified me of this, and one brother sent me a list of ten or so points from the dialogue, while numerous people asked for clarification.

Many of these doubts were raised during the 90s, which Shaykh Rabīʿ already addressed, but they have been passed through a Ruḥaylian filter, reframed and rephrased.

In this article, we will address some of the key points from the dialogue in pursuit of truth, and as a reminder, as Allāh (عز وجل) said: “ِAnd remind, for verily reminder benefits the believers” (51:55-) and as advice, as the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “The religion is sincerity (of purpose).”^[1] From sincerity of purpose to Muslims is removing misunderstandings which are the cause of harmful differences between Ahl al-Sunnah specifically and Muslims in general.

First, some background and important context is necessary so that the points discussed below are better understood.

The Fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī

In the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī and his followers, the Muṣaʿfiqah, a group of Salafī shaykhs and students—and from them were ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group—were openly criticised and attacked and some were spoken of with language of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl. However, when requested Ibn Hādī was unable to meet the burden and threshold of proof, commensurate to the great commotion and turmoil he had created, and the huge splits that ensued in the daʿwah all across the world as a result.

This fitnah peaked at the end of 2017 and the first half of 2018, and in the years that followed, Ibn Hādī was embroiled in a court case because he made an accusation, from inside a mosque, against a person from a European country. Thereby, he exceeded the bounds from not just one, but two angles.

In light of this, Shaykh Rabīʿ, seeking to quell and end the fitnah, advised those who are taken as scholars and who have standing to uphold and advocate for the truth. This being their duty and responsibility in front of Allāh, in order to strengthen the truth and to serve as a means for people to abandon falsehood and to return to the state of affairs that used to exist prior to the fitnah. This is something sought by the Sharīʿah and is achieved by advocacy and support for the truth against error, falsehood and oppression.

From the shaykhs who were advised directly and in person by Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī about the serious errors and gross misconduct of Muḥammad bin Hādī was Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī due to his proximity. Sadly, he did not heed the advice and continued to speak well of Ibn Hādī and supported him.

It should be noted that there are different levels of responsibility for people based on their standing and status and their proximity to any fitnah. Scholars, of all people, have a duty to uphold the truth in matters in which they have been made fully aware, and in which their word and stance will serve to give prominence to truth, diminish error, falsehood and oppression, and aid in uniting the word and rank of Ahl al-Sunnah, thereby restoring it, as much as possible, to what it was prior to the fitnah.

Shaykh Rabīʿ took a similar issue against one of the chiefs of the Tamyīʿī ideology, Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, when he failed to stand against the party of obstinacy in previous tribulations, saying to him:^[2]

However, when scholars fail to do this duty, it is not a minor error but a significant flaw in methodological application and represents a lack of protective jealousy (ghayrah) for the truth in the matter at hand (which raises the plausibility of it existing in other areas too), and this necessitates caution.

For this reason, Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) issued a warning against him for his silence regarding the fitnah, and this warning does not necessitate tabdīʿ (heresification) but is aimed at realising Sharīʿah objectives.

To understand this, we can give a similitude.

In the same way, when we have fitnah (tribulation), when it has been kindled and has begun to rage, then it is a duty upon those who have standing and ability and are in proximity to it to aid in quelling and extinguishing it, or to avoid indifference towards those who kindle it and continue to feed it. When they fail in that duty, then they are rightfully subject to blame and disciplinary action. Such action does not entail heresification (tabdīʿ) or attributing foundational misguidance (taḍlīl), but is an exemplary measure, in veneration of the truth and preserving the boundaries of duty and sense of responsibility.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrates from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUwaysī, who said:^[3]

Scholars may show disapproval for the conduct of other scholars, and they may boycott them or advise others to boycott them, for a limited period, or so long as they display the erroneous conduct, and this is not the same field as boycotting the innovators, nor does it necessitate tabdīʿ.

Once this is clear, there is another matter that must be addressed.

Renewing Way of Ibn Hādī

The fitnah which occurred at the hands of Muḥammad bin Hādī was revived by a group against a number of shaykhs and students between 2019 and 2025 across a number of different events and it led to splits and enmities never seen before in the daʿwah, worse than that of Ibn Hādī, and it had the same elements. Knowledge and details of these affairs converged between mid to late 2025, and numerous mashāyikh took the initiative to openly clarify the truth and take the legislated stance which crystallised at the end of December 2025 and early January 2026.

Further, this oppressive conduct emerged out of issues connected to rulership, obedience, rebellion, sedition and secession, all of which are connected to mighty foundations of the religion, and this conduct has never, ever been observed from senior scholars. Further, Muḥammad bin Hādī himself never fell into these affairs and was staunch regarding them, whereas this group has been complicit in violations with respect to them.

This is also alongside the fact that the ghuluww in Ibn Hādī was nothing compared to ghuluww and fanaticism shown by this group for the figureheads (rumūz) of this fitnah.

When the victims of this oppression sought to defend themselves, as is their right to do so, and seek redress and establishment of truth and justice, they were met with tremendous abuse from the fanatics and bigots attached to these personalities, on a scale never seen before in terms of its coordination, comprising malice and rank hatred. Whatever Ibn Hādī was criticised for, they fell into much worse, with much more clear and explicit language, and in affairs in which the truth was not even on their side, rather, the truth was with their victims.

So this was also a fitnah of oppressive jarh, tabdīʿ and taḍlīl on flimsy and baseless grounds and of ghuluww in personalities, but compounded with violations of foundations of the Sunnah and the Salafī methodology.

There is one more connected issue that needs addressing:

A Renewed Trend: Tamyīʿ Disguised as Moderation and Wisdom

There is another emerging trend that we must be aware of, which is the focus around “respecting the scholars” and warning against “attacking the scholars”—words of truth which we are all agreed upon without a doubt, but there is a specific agenda behind it, and it seems to be reserved only for a specific individuals who alone embody the term “the scholars”, does not seem to include others, and is only applied selectively.

Likewise, excusing significant methodological violations as “mistakes of scholars”, or statements such as, “he is an ʿālīm with mistakes” and should be “treated respectfully, while preserving honour”, which could have been said about many scholars and shaykhs in the past such as Ibn Jibrīn, Bakr Abu Zayd, al-Ghunaymān and others who were disparaged for shielding people of falsehood and misguidance. These are the same arguments that were brought by Surūrīs and ḥizbīs when their figureheads were justifiably criticised for errors in these same issues of rulership, the affairs of jihād and rebellion and sedition and for opposing the fatwas of senior scholars.

The phrase itself, “an ʿālīm with mistakes”, is dubious, because there is no ʿālim except that he has errors as scholars are not infallible. Further, “mistakes” is a broad term and covers many types of mistakes, and not every mistake can be excused. The issue is whether these “errors” and “mistakes” are excusable or not, whether these slips and mistakes impact others and the daʿwah, and are they isolated slips or representative of a way or an approach and if they are methodological in nature. Also, it does not distinguish between mistakes that are stubbornly persisted upon and mistakes that are retracted from.

There is no doubt that the scholar who errs in his ijtihad—in matters where ijtihad is permitted—is excused and his honour is preserved. This is what is found in the speech of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh (حفظه الله) that has been also spread, serving as a replacement for the dialogue in question. However, this is general speech that is not under dispute and is agreed upon by everyone, and it is feared that a specific agenda is being pursued by it. Such speech does not override the fact that not every scholar is free of blame and excused in all of what emanates from him. Even more so, when these errors are in clear matters having clear texts and consensus, and are from the foundations of the Sunnah and the Salafī methodology. Otherwise, we would have to rewrite much of recent and past history, and offer apologies to many misguided people through this avenue.

In reality, all of this vague, ambiguous speech is part of the war on clarity (wuḍūḥ) because well-read, comprehending, principled Salafīs upon the path of the Rabbānī scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī, Shaykh Zayd, Shaykh ʿUbayd and others, become an annoyance to people whose preferred laxity in affairs of religion are threatened by such clarity, and this is because they may have dealings, interactions, approaches and pursuits that are questionable, especially to an educated, comprehending, truth-loving Salafī.

For this reason, those upon this orientation discourage Salafīs from delving into affairs by saying, “You will not be asked about this in the grave”, “You will not be asked about so-and-so on the Day of Resurrection”, “You will only be asked two questions on the Day of Resurrection, and that’s it”, “You will only be asked three questions in the grave” and what is like that. This is the speech of Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī and whoever followed him in that.

Likewise, “Why are you delving into foreign conflicts? They don’t affect you and your community?”, “This has got nothing to do with your daʿwah, focus on building your community”, “Do not get involved in the disputes between so-and-so and so-and-so” and what is like this speech which we have heard before from Shadeed Muḥammad, Muḥammad Munīr and their likes.

Likewise, retorts such as: “Give me the iʿrāb (grammatical analysis) of this sentence before you ask me about seeking knowledge from so-and-so!” This is abuse of knowledge in the sense that because Allāh blessed you to understand iʿrāb, you are abusing it as a tactical weapon to evade giving straight answers to sincere seekers of truth who want clarity regarding individuals, without that necessitating that they are preoccupying themselves from gaining comprehension in the religion, merely by asking legitimate questions.

All of this is to frighten Salafīs away from clarity in religion, in methodology, in sound positions in relation to what Allāh decrees of tribulations to separate between the truth-seeker and the follower of desires.

This language (and what it relies upon of vagueness, ambiguity, generalisation and equivocation) represents a new manifestation of the Ḥalabī-Ruḥaylī methodology which seeks to undermine legitimate criticism of methodological violations and to discourage Salafīs from truth-discovery. This is coming from certain directions and being infused into the UK, and its effects are already visible...

We can only allude to this point here, for the sake of brevity, but sadly, people have fallen victim to this despite being warned.

From what has preceded, we now have all the right ingredients enabling us to make better sense of the dialogue, so let us proceed.

Points from the Dialogue

The points below are addressed only briefly, without adding relevant quotations, otherwise, it will lengthen the discussion. The intent is that the reader grasp the overall picture, to see how all of these things are tied together and where they are emanating from.

Shaykh Rabīʿ spoke and warned against Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī and his likes who failed in their duty, or even sided with Muḥammad bin Hādī after his affair had become clear, and this is firmly established from Shaykh Rabīʿ as narrated from him through a meeting dated 16 February 2019.

Shaykh Rabīʿ was described as “The Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl” by Imām al-Albānī, due to his outstanding efforts in the field of criticism, even though out of humility, he objected to this label. Shaykh Rabīʿ knows what he is saying and doing in accordance with the manhaj of Ahl al-Ḥadīth, and its foundations, principles and objectives, in preservation of the sanctities and boundaries of the religion, and this can sometimes include speaking about notable people of knowledge in pursuit of Sharīʿah objectives which are perceived by intelligent scholars.

This emanates from the Ruḥaylian concept in relation to the grave and the hereafter, and is being applied to the world. “You will not be asked about so-and-so in the grave, or the hereafter”, “So-and-so does not affect your country, why are you asking about him?” The effect of this type of speech is that it promotes methodological illiteracy among Salafīs so that they are absent a criterion which allows them to distinguish between he who proceeds upon the clear, Salafī way in his conduct, methodology, positions, loyalties, and he who does not.

There is no mutual exclusivity between a country being full of kufr, shirk and bidʿah and asking about the disparagement of certain people and the reasons for it, and the stance regarding them, whether in relation affairs of creed or methodology, and it is not as if this person who is asking this question, is doing this every hour, day in, day out, every week, every month and every year. He has asked this question during this interaction. He may well be involved in teaching and clarifying these affairs of kufr, shirk and bidʿah in his land, or there could be callers and students who are doing that on the ground.

Further, oppositions are of various levels and the obligation upon each person varies, based on knowledge and ability. The obligation of calling to Allāh, and warning against kufr, shirk and bidʿah in non-Muslim lands cannot be leveraged to silence questions about methodology, because this is also from the religion.

We believe in all of the Book, we believe in all of the Sunnah, we believe in all aspects of sound creed and methodology, and while foundations must be built, valid questions about individuals cannot be dismissed just because non-Muslim countries are steeped in misguidance, and especially in the modern era where the entire world is connected and a person in one part of the world can have followers in other countries, on the other side of the world, and hence, knowledge of men and what they are upon or where they stand in tribulations impacting methodological purity and clarity becomes of more importance and concern to the average Muslim than in prior centuries, given that the world has shrunk and become more interconnected than ever.

The impression is given here in this speech that we only warn from people for major innovations such as Tajahhum, Rafḍ, Khārijiyyah, Taṣawwuf, and in the subject matters of Īmān Qadar, Ṣahābah, Imāmah and so on, and the mention of Jahmī was by way of example only, it was not meant to be restrictive. However, warning is not restricted just to these major innovations, and to outright innovators alone, as sometimes it is necessary to warn on the basis of actions, traits, behaviours, positions, when they are or may be an accessory to confusion and potential misguidance and harm, even if the person concerned is not misguided in foundational issues.

These doubts were answered decades ago, books were written by Shaykh Rabīʿ around these subjects.

If someone is causing difficulty for people, say in their congregational acts of worship, he can be rebuked, and it is not said, “Leave him alone, he is not a Jahmī”. When a woman seeks knowledge about suitors for marriage, and it is said that this is one is in poverty and that one is aggressive and violent, so do not marry them, it is not said, “Do not warn from them, they are not Jahmīs”. When a person seeks advice about a business partner and he is told to be cautious due to his lack of honesty and straight dealings, it is not said, “Do not warn from him, he is not a Jahmī”. When a person accompanies open sinners, criminals, thugs and vagabonds, failing to heed advice, and is warned against, it is not said, “Do not warn against him, he is not a Jahmī”. And when a scholar (say Ibn Jibrīn or Bakr Abu Zayd) shield Khārijites and Ḥizbīs and attacks those who criticise and refute them, it is not said: “Do not warn against him, he is not a Jahmī”. And when a scholar in proximity to fitnah, knowing that his voice will quell or potentially end a fitnah, restore lost unity and save people from remaining upon falsehood, and he fails to do so and sides with the oppressor, or shields him, then it is not said, “So-and-so shaykh(s) should not warned against him, he is not a Jahmī.”

With this line of reasoning, the obligation of enjoining good and prohibiting evil, and establishing truth and justice, and protecting the methodology from having its boundaries compromised, all of that can be dropped with the argument that “So-and-so is not a Rāfiḍī, Jahmī, Ṣūfī or Qadarī”.

Further, shaykhs like Shaykh Nizār bin Hashim, Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī, who called to the foundations of the Sunnah and defended them, in preservation of the stability and security of nations and of lives of Muslims, following the way of the Rabbānī scholars, they are also not Jahmīs. So should this not also be said to those who warn against them due to bigotry and fanaticism towards personalities? Can they also not afforded the privilege of being described as “scholars with mistakes” and shielded and protected from the tongues?

When a person mixes with people who are habitual, open sinners or criminals, without reprimanding them, this does not mean that this person defends these evil actions or agrees with them. However, it shows a lack of veneration for goodness and truth, and this person may be mixing with them due to prior friendship, or for some worldly interest, or a religious interest polluted with a worldly interest and so on. This person deserves rebuke and condemnation and this type of conduct brings Allāh’s wrath and punishment upon societies.

In the same way, when a person shields or supports a person who carries methodological errors and is the cause of corruption and oppression, not in matters of personal sin, but in matters affecting the daʿwah and the unity and strength of Ahl al-Sunnah, which is far more serious than the sins of individuals, then this is also blameworthy, in fact, more so. As for what his reasons may be, then that does not concern us after the errant and misguided path of that person he is shielding and siding with has been made clear.

First, it was Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī who actually warned against Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī, and Salafīs who are upon clarity, having understood the purpose and wisdom behind it, took it with acceptance, but on the principle of justice, making it clear that this warning does not amount to tabdīʿ, but follows other principles and objectives. The questioner’s reason for pushing the line of questioning is his opposition to Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī for having sided with Muḥammad bin Hādī.

Secondly, what is meant by the above statement is that those who have rightfully criticised ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group for their errors such as complicity in rebellion, explicit tabdīʿ of Salafīs, praising and shielding innovators, lying to senior scholars in matters of war and bloodshed, that they have now joined Muḥammad bin Hādī. This is clearly untrue and indicates confusion and failure to grasp or acknowledge the factual and ground realities as explained earlier.

Thirdly, finding fault with the conduct of one or two shaykhs, does not mean that a person is “attacking the scholars” or “hates the scholars”. Rather, we love the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, and whoever deceives and lies to the people that we hate the scholars and are trying to bring them down, then they are liars and we continue to make duʿā to Allāh to expose them and disgrace them for their deliberate, wanton oppression.

These are merely rhetorical and emotional arguments, and these types of scenarios have been accounted for within the methodology of Ahl al-Ḥadīth in the criticism and evaluation of men. This is why there are various principles regarding the jarḥ mufassar (detailed disparagement) taking precedence over the praise, and the principle of “he who knows is a proof over he who does not know”, and the principle of “men are known by the truth” and so on. It is because there are constraints which exist in the knowledge and ability of individual scholars, leading to the inevitability of conflicting views, opinions and judgements regarding men, and to ensure the truth is not lost, even if it is possessed by just one scholar, these principles exist to ensure that truth is preserved and can be transmitted and conveyed.

Further, we do not know the reality of this claim that Shaykh Rabīʿ explained this in detail to Shaykh al-Fawzan in his house, and also, Ibn Hādī being welcomed to the houses of scholars or being invited for talks are not arguments that can invalidate the justified, warranted, evidence-based criticisms and refutations against him. If we followed this line of crude reasoning, then we would have to undermine and reject a body of established truth.

As mentioned above, this is vague and ambiguous language, which on the surface is true, but its intended application is unclear. It may represent principles that the scholars refuted decades ago and It may be part of the new assault against the way of clarity embodied in the efforts and endeavours of the Rabbānī scholars mentioned earlier.

It is feared that this statement incorporates aspects of the principle of al-muwāzanah, which is to counterbalance what are in reality methodological errors deserving criticism and rebuke, and in cases, warning, with possession of knowledge and scholarly status. Likewise, it appears to reduce methodological violations to mere excusable ijtihāds, and to apply this in a generalised way, such that instances where rebuke and refutation is warranted, can be erased or downplayed.

Bakr Abu Zayd was a scholar with mistakes. Ibn Jibrīn was a scholar with mistakes. We could also say that al-Ḥalabī, al-Maʾribi, al-Ḥajūrī and Ibn Hādī were considered scholars, and they just had mistakes. This can be applied, across the board, to every scholar or shaykh, past or present. It conceals the fact that mistakes are not all of the same type and level, and that mistakes can be excusable and inexcusable, and that some mistakes contain no harm and are self-limiting, whereas other mistakes can be disastrous, affecting entire nations, or the lives and property of people, or their guidance and misguidance.

So caution is required because such an orientation may seek to undo much of the clarity found in the writings of Shaykh Rabīʿ, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī and others, and replace it with a new approach with various slogans. The aim being to undermining the role of criticism and refutation in ensuring methodological purity and clarity. This would allow for serious methodological violations in relation to rulership, rebellion, and praise, defence and allegiance with innovators, and tabdīʿ of Salafīs to be dismissed as “the slips of scholars”. It would also allow the evasion of due process, wherein clear retraction, repentance, clarification and apology is required, and the taking of clear stances, in preservation of truth and justice, is also required.

As mentioned earlier, it is a duty of scholars to uphold the truth and clarify it to the people, and the level of responsibility varies from scholar to scholar depending on his knowledge, awareness, understanding of the issues, and proximity to the fitnah. Over the past months, we have cited many statements from the scholars regarding such issues, in particular from Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī.

While Safar and Salmān and the Surūrīs were being refuted by mashāyikh in Madīnah, we did not blame Shaykh Bin Bāz and Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn for speaking well of them or defending them or not having a stance, because they did not know, or there was a period where they heard things and there was confusion, but it had not yet settled with them.

These circumstances are part and parcel of the dynamics of fitnah, and are situations decreed by Allāh to test people. We cannot draw upon such affairs and incorporate them into arguments to deny the truth or to defend and shield people who are in fact blameworthy and deserve criticism, rebuke or refutation.

Thus, we do not place Shaykh Bin Bāz, and Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn in the same category as Bakr Abū Zayd, Ibn Jibrīn and others, who knowingly defended people upon falsehood.

Yes, some scholars may praise an innovator or a deviant and not know, due to lack of awareness, and they may not be aware of the reality of that person, or it may not have settled with them at that point, hence, they maintain normal relations and so on. However, this is a world apart from those who directly see the evil, destructive effects of the Ḥaddadī methodology upon the unity and strength of Ahl al-Sunnah or those who accommodate liars, mischief-makers, and people of falsehood, and are advised over and over, but remain silent, while the mischief-makers in their midst are involved in intrigues, complicit in rebellion and sedition, rousing people against legitimate authority and waging war against Ahl al-Sunnah in lowly and despicable ways.

Further, no one is “dropping scholars” but simply applying the principles of the Salafī methodology and the beaten track of the Rabbānī scholars to such scenarios, like for like. Hence, whoever deserves rebuke, criticism, refutation or even warning (without that necessitating tabdīʿ), will receive it, and there will be mashāyikh who will stand and perform this duty, even in the presence of senior scholars, as has occurred in prior decades.

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-ʿAbbād (حفظه الله) was mistaken, just as he was mistaken regarding ʿAbū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī without this diminishing his honour and status, just as Imāms of the past, were mistaken about narrators or other individuals. We have spoken about these issues, or these doubts previously, and here they are, being raised again.

It is a fact that not every scholar has the same level of expertise and in-depth knowledge and experience in a field as another, even if that scholar may have a higher status otherwise. There are disparities and differences because knowledge itself is divisible and exists in categories. Shaykh Rabīʿ was correct about Safar and Salmān while Shaykh Bin Bāz, Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn (رحمهم الله) praised and defended them, in the absence of complete knowledge. Shaykh Rabīʿ was right about al-Maʾribī and saw what others did not see whereas Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin erred when he spoke against Shaykh Rabīʿ and other scholars who did a great service to Ahl al-Sunnah in exposing false claimants to Salafiyyah and their false principles aimed at weakening Salafīs and blurring the dividing lines between the methodologies of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and those of Ahl al-Bidaʿ wal-Tahazzub.

Hence, these types of arguments, where the existence of differing in itself is considered the proof are reflective of lack of grounding in the methodology of Ahl al-Ḥadīth in the criticism of men, and all of these doubts were answered and refuted by Shaykh Rabīʿ in the 1990s in relation to other figureheads. These are regurgitated arguments being used to promote a watered-down methodology which allows a desired laxity to become acceptable—including flattery and accommodation of and company with ḥizbīs and likewise laxity towards sin and sinners—because it is conducive to other interests.

Important Note:

It should be made clear that people often wander into these affairs without really realising it, and most likely due to influence from others, who they may hold in respect, and who may have their own agendas. Hence, they are really victims themselves and not primary instigators of error, confusion or falsehood. Therefore, it is important to note that we are not ascribing evil intentions here, but from the angle of “love for your brother what you love for yourself”, simply pointing out the danger of this direction and where it will lead to. People are led into error with the sincerest of intentions, and it is a duty to point out the error while redirecting the sincere intentions to where they ought to belong.

Closing Note

The above is more of a connecting the dots exercise than it is addressing matters in detail with extensive quotes regarding methodology and principles and so on. Such affairs have already been documented separately. The intent is to place these current discussions and disputes into their proper context, because they are tied to all the other events taking place.

In short, Ibn Hādī and the Muṣaʿfiqah made unwarranted tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of shaykhs and students on flimsy grounds and without presenting evidence in a timely manner, and caused splits among Ahl al-Sunnah. They had sound positions in issues of rulership (imāmah) and what is connected to it of jihād, rebellion and so on.

Then there is a group that followed in the same path and made either oppressive tabdīʿ and taḍlīl or severe tajrīḥ of shaykhs and students who sought to protect nations and the lives and well-being of Muslims. They exceeded Ibn Hādī and his followers by a great deal in the vileness and fierceness of their attacks with more explicit words of tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and tajrīḥ, and some of them are established liars, not in any ordinary speech, but in what affects the plight of nations. They also have errors and violations in the field of rulership, rebellion, secession, jihād, war and bloodshed, and likewise, praise of innovators. Whoever saw all of this play out live, in real time, and is not willing to acknowledge this fact, is lying to himself.

However, in between the oppressors and the victims there is another group, upon the way of Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, presenting as rectifiers, but who shield those who are originally responsible for the tribulation and chaos and who deserve criticism. They provide them escape routes, such as admissions, or backtracks in private that are kept secret, without open retractions and clarification, allowing the evasion of justice and returning of rights as necessitated by Allāh’s Law. They make every excuse for them while showing harshness and severity to their victims and blaming them for all of the division and chaos.

We ask Allāh (عز وجل) with his Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes to end this fitnah. This will only occur through adherence to the way of the Salaf and the way of the Rabbānī scholars in addressing such issues with firmness, fairness, justice and the actual wisdom based on the actual legislated universal maṣlaḥah (benefit) that returns to the preservation of His religion and its mighty foundations, and preservation of the truth and establishment of justice—which are the Rope of Allāh, and the root of the tree we have been commanded to hold onto during tribulations, to main unity and safety—and not the subjective personal or localised maṣāliḥ for which truth and justice end up being sacrificed, leading to confusion and disarray.

Footnotes