Various tribulations have engulfed the Salafī daʿwah, many of them coming from the direction of the Takfīrīs, and then the Ḥaddādīs, and from the elements of their innovations that crept into the daʿwah are premature and unwarranted judgements of tabdīʿ against scholars, shaykhs and students. From those who erred in this respect is Muḥammad bin Hādī, a person who yielded respect and had position and recognition among the people of knowledge. What he fell into is encapsulated in one quote from Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī taken from his article in June 2018:

The fitnah unleashed by Muḥammad bin Hādī can be summarised in the following areas:

01  Unwarranted tabdīʿ and taḍlīl which is devoid of evidence justifying such a ruling and has not followed due process.

02  Warning from Salafīs upon the claim that they are deviants (munḥarifūn).

03  Testing people over this tabdīʿ (heresification), taḥdhīr (warning) and tajdīʿ (cutting off), and splitting communities.

04  False witness by use of the term “Ṣaʿfūq” in which there is the negation of knowledge from the people in question.

Sadly, Muḥammad bin Hādī got overtaken by pride and anger, and unable to justify these harsh and hasty rulings against people in his own circle, he began to make other claims, until he detached himself from those senior to him and began to speak ill of them, such as Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd, when, on matter of principle, they did not support and aid him in the path he had embarked upon.

So Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī requested clear evidences for this premature and unwarranted tabdīʿ, taḥdhīr and tajdīʿ that violates due process in relation to the principles of the Salafī methodology and for the additional things Muḥammad bin Hādī began to speak with. Sadly, he never brought the goods requested of him, which is clear evidence that justifies this tabdīʿ, taḥdhīr and tajdīʿ, and splitting communities all over the world. He lacked the foresight, wisdom, forbearance and patience of scholars like Shaykh Rabīʿ and made a huge mess in the process.

This unfortunate episode led to shaykhs from Jīzān, Riyāḍ and elsewhere, taking the side of Ibn Hādī because of his status and the respect they held for him, and because this band of individuals being spoken against were newcomers or unknown to them, so they saw that his word carried more weight and sided with him, and others remained out of the issue altogether.

Thereafter, some of those who were on the side of Ibn Hādī, in the months that followed, began to document some of the past errors (and shenanigans) of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, seeking to mend the image of Ibn Hādī, to prove he was correct all along. However, they had missed the point, because Ibn Hādī was asked to validate his judgements of tabdīʿ, and he failed to bring the goods, after the great commotion he caused. It was not about mistakes in and of themselves, whether presumed or actual.

As a result, much confusion arose, and splits happened in every place, all because Ibn Hādī did not follow due process. This was perhaps the first fitnah in which Ibn Hādī took the lead, to take it to its intended conclusion. However, it became clear to everyone that he is not made of the same material as Shaykh Rabīʿ in dealing with Ahl al-Sunnah with wisdom and patience until they either return or the proof is established against them convincingly, whereby the least amount of controversy and splitting is entailed.

In the end, he opposed the Salafī methodology and got himself entangled in a mess by making judgements against people he could not justify and was unable to provide the threshold of evidence required for such judgements.

Sadly, not only did he fall into this in religious matters, he also fell into it regarding worldly matters wherein he made an accusation against an individual in a European country that landed him in lengthy court proceedings. Though he was convicted, he eventually came out on top after many appeals, and his opponents had made a big tactical mistake of diverting the issue from being one of mahhaj, to one of sin, and also the fact that the person concerned, was known in his community to be of unsavoury character. This further deceived the Muṣaʿfiqah, leading them to think that they had been in the right all along, and it blinded them from seeing the errors of Muḥammad bin Hādī and the havoc he wrought.

So this is what Muḥammad bin Hādī did to the daʿwah, and the Muṣaʿfiqah remain blind or pretend to be blind to it.

Reviving the Legacy: Muṣaʿfiqism Under a New Garb

We established above the main elements of the Muṣaʿfiqite manhaj, which involves what amounts to premature, unwarranted tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of people, then launching an all out war, then making imtihān of people around it, (and splitting people in Salafī communities), while giving false witness that the ones being attacked have no acquisition of knowledge and are worthless. These exact same elements have been found in the recent attacks that have been made against myself and Maktabah Salafiyyah.

So lets take them one by one:

01  Unwarranted tabdīʿ and taḍlīl. Imputing a Salafī with the “desire to bring down the scholars”, and the way of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd and the Surūriyyah and Quṭbiyyah towards them, claiming (allegedly) that he sees them as dervishes, and fools and idiots who are incompetent, all based on the most horrendous, deliberate distortion of speech, and outright fabrications, then this is tantamount to tabdīʿ in all but name.

It is virtually impossible for person so described in such a way to not be an innovator. It is made worse when the Salafī in question is known for defence and protection of the scholars in major tribulations over the decades, with Allāh’s permission and bounty.

In reality, they twisted my sincere intentions to provide principle-based defences of the rulers and based on factual realities and portrayed me as an enemy of the scholars and rulers. To see much greater detail on this matter, refer to this lengthy article: Defending the Rulers and Scholars Upon the Necessities of Knowledge

02  Warning from Salafīs. The leader of this new wave got his proxies and soldiers in various parts of the world to start the warnings. All of this was documented and people saw it taking place, live, in real time on social media, which has preserved all of their activities.

03  Testing people. Then they began to test people over these accusations of misguidance, and based their love and hate, loyalty and disloyalty around it.

They split communities and most of these communities especially in Europe, had no idea about such issues and it would not have really concerned them. However, some of them fell into partisanship just like the partisanship of the Muṣaʿfiqah for Muḥammad bin Hādī. Sadly, they paid little attention to the harms that they were causing and they sacrificed the unity of their communities to defend these personalities based upon taqlīd.

04  False witness. Some of these followers, after previously affirming possession of knowledge, understanding and experience, and taking from the scholars etc. for those whom they targeted (see here and here for example), now began to deny all of that and claimed that they did not take from scholars, did not really study, and dismissed and belittled past efforts.

As you can see, when you judge by the actual ground realities, and look beyond the glitter and the veils of deception, you see that these people are simply another wave exemplifying the activities and behaviours of the Muṣaʿfiqah, like for like.

Note: While these things were taking place over the past years, thinking about the overall daʿwah, I tried my best not to escalate the issues, and made tanāzul (compromise) on a number of occasions to maintain unity. This emanated from a degree of good suspicion (husn al-ḍhann) and also thinking about those attached to personalities, so as not to put them to trial and push them away. However, what we experienced was not a one-off but a pattern of behaviour, the exposure of which is imminent because other people have experienced it and become sick and tired of it and its harm, not only to the daʿwah but even to the geopolitics of the region. For just as Muḥammad bin Hādī did not possess the calibre, insight, wisdom and forbearance of scholars like Shaykh Rabīʿ and was unfit for the role he tried to assume in an independent manner, then likewise this new band claiming unique leadership and sole-reference for the worldwide Salafī daʿwah and its affairs, they too are unfit for the affairs they entered into, and the evidence for that will avalanche in the weeks and months to come inshāʾAllāh.

Using Victimhood as a Shield

The fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī has allowed those who continue his way to play the victimhood card, and they use it as a shield for any valid criticisms of their words, deeds, conduct and violations of the Salafī methodology, whether current, or past, including prior to the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī which are not disconnected to what we are seeing today.

In a previous article on how one of the leaders of this movement has been called out as a liar by other shaykhs (and more evidence will accumulate over time), I mentioned that he does not have a clean past. Some of his followers became angry for his sake, and not for the fact that he opposed the principles of the Salafī methodology and standards of honesty and integrity.

In Conclusion

Rulings are based on factual and ground realities, not mere labels and claims, and what we are seeing is a dividing line between those who genuinely value and follow the Salafī methodology as exemplified by the great scholars of this era, and to whom adherence to Salafī principles and giving primacy to evidence is paramount, and between those who argue by way of statuses and personalities, adopting garbs and simulated appearances, and the use of bullying, intimidation and threats, while fleeing from any meaningful dialogue regarding their false claims and unwarranted oppressive judgements.

In reality, they are on the same side of the fence as Muḥammad bin Hādī, following in his footsteps, and that should be plain and evident. When Ibn Hādī was called out for his violations and transgressions against the Salafī methodology and for causing much harm and polarisation in the daʿwah worldwide, his followers used his status as a defence and they made use of commendations as a weapon to avoid having to accept the truth, “He is an Allāmah and he is praised by so-and-so great scholars, how dare you speak ill of him etc.” Nobody spoke ill of him, they just held him to task through the Salafī methodology. However, they refused to acknowledge that he had erred, and they fell into blameworthy taʿaṣsub (partisanship) and taqlīd (blind-following), and were misled by the fact that the other party, being spoken of, were not of clean hands.

Further reading:

• Shaykh Rabīʿ Bin Hādī: Disparagement and Appraisal Are Made In Accordance With A Methodology and Principles, Not Statuses of Scholars
• Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī: On the Necessity of Studying and Understanding the Speech of Two Contending Parties and Distinguishing Truth from Error
• Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī: On Academic and Intellectual Integrity When Criticising Errors, Innovations and Misguidance
• Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī: On the Necessity of Following Criticisms Based on Verification of Evidence, Not Bigotry and Partisanship Towards Individuals
• Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī and Shaykh Ḥamūd al-Tuwayjurī: Accepting Truth from Scholars Due to Evidence Not Status, and There is no Place for Emotions, Schemes and Tricks in Clarifying Truth
• Shaykh Rabīʿ Bin Hādī: None Show Bigotry, Partisanship (Taʿaṣṣub) Save the Foolish Or Insane, a Believer Must Always Seek the Truth