Abd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī is said to be a former student and follower of the extreme Ḥaddādī known as ʿAbd Allāh al-Jarbūʿ and his nurturing as a youth is said to be an Ikhwānī one, with affiliation to and defence of the likes of ʿĀʾiḍ al-Qarnī, Nāṣir al-ʿUmar and others, having only entered Salafiyyah during or at the end of his undergraduate studies at the Jāmiʿah. This is what is said—and it may be that he repented from that way, but sometimes a man's past can remain with him unless his repentance has been genuine, deep and truly rectifying—and as such, this man's background needs further investigation for verification and corroboration, due to his suspect activities.^[1]

I’d never even heard of him until some years before the fitnah of the Muṣaʿfiqah came into motion. Prior to that, I have no idea how long he had been a Salafī. It’s strange that someone who has barely left his 30s, with a background such as this, is taken as an authority in attacking Salafīs under false pretences.

Given the above details, it’s ironic that this person should surface all of a sudden to accuse others of turning people away from the senior scholars. Further, these are legitimate questions about the background of this individual and they cannot be deflected by personal attacks or insults.

Coming to the issue, an audio recording and translated transcript of some speech of al-Rifāʿī was posted on social media today, 6 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1446 (2 June 2025), which was intended as a refutation against me in relation to an entry on the Brixton Contract. It's unclear to me as to why al-Rifāʿī seems so sensitive and offended by the contents of that entry, unless he has a guilty conscience and feels that the article applies to him.

Al-Rifaʾī is following up on the failed attempts of his companion, Dr. ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī to expel me from Salafiyyah and split the daʿwah here in the UK because I contested his lies, distortions and fabrications and violation of the Salafī methodology in how to deal with Ahl al-Sunnah, upon the way of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and Muḥammad bin Hādī. So al-Rifāʾī has come on to the scene and is looking for scraps which he can use to aid the cause of his companion.

Let's proceed to the issue:

Benefiting from all the Scholars and Shaykhs of Ahl al-Sunnah

First, I should make clear the following based on what Shaykh Rabīʿ has said with respect to these types of affairs, and this is speech which I translated and spread almost a quarter of a century ago, it was from a gathering in Leicester, where we had a telelink with Shaykh Rabīʿ in the presence of some Arab brothers and ourselves from Maktabah Salafiyyah:

The question:

And from the Shaykh's answer:

That which I and others say is that there are many mashāyikh among Ahl al-Sunnah, and they are all given their due status and worth. They are all benefited from, and advice can be sought from any of them or more than one of them, and likewise, affairs can be returned back to any of them, without specification or exclusivity.

Once we have clarified this from the outset so there is no confusion about the rest of the article, let us proceed.

The Speech of al-Maʾribī

In the Brixton Contract entry, the speech of Shaykh ʿUbayd and Shaykh Rabīʿ is very clear, there is no ambiguity in what they said, and hence, no ambiguity in the purpose of the article. Let us look at what was said by al-Maʾribī, the substance of his speech, and then the particular reality that Shaykh ʿUbayd and Shaykh Rabīʿ pointed out:

The speech of al-Maʾribī:

So basically all affairs of differing are returned to two shaykhs who are said to be most aware of daʿwah in these lands, and no one should go to any other shaykhs, as this would be counted as “fitnah”. Rather, access to other shaykhs should only be through these two shaykhs.

And this is what Shaykh ʿUbayd (رحمه الله) said about the above speech, that it:

And this is what Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) said:

There were no other names of any other shaykhs mentioned in the entry on the Brixton Contract at all. The point being made was that specifying just one or two shaykhs to whom all affairs of differing between Salafīs are returned to is from partisanship (taḥazzub ). This was explicitly stated by Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd.

This is something universal, a foundation, a principle, that restricting these affairs to just one or two shaykhs is from partisanship.

Now why is ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī feeling so sensitive about this entry? Is he calling to the same thing that Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd warned against? Is he saying that we should refer all of our affairs and disputes back to one shaykh? If he isn’t, then there is no reason to feel that that article on the Brixton Contract is about him, and he needn’t have responded. And if he is, then I thank him for confirming it.

ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī's Dishonesty

Now let’s take a look at how ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī has dishonestly misrepresented the issue. He said (as spread by his followers and supporters):

So let’s understand exactly what he has done here, which is reflective of either his lack of understanding if we are charitable, or his dishonesty in presenting the issue. We will do this in a number of points:

01  Firstly, there is no mention of any other shaykh in that article regarding the Brixton Contract. It simply makes the point, through the speech of Shaykh ʿUbayd and Shaykh Rabīʿ, that tying Salafīs to just one or two shaykhs in all of their affairs (disputes, differences, daʿwah affairs, arbitrations and so on) is from partisanship.

Given this, it is impossible that when these scholars give commendation for anybody, that it is as if they are intending the very thing which they warn against. Namely, that their commendation for a shaykh means that this shaykh is returned to exclusively (in all of the affairs of daʿwah, resolving disputes, arbitrations etc.). Nobody understands this from any commendation given by Shaykh Rabīʿ, or Shaykh ʿUbayd or any other scholar for that matter. This is something obvious.

In reality, it seems that al-Rifāʿī is acting as if he has a guilty conscience, perceiving that the article is describing what he and his likes are doing, of demanding Salafīs to return their affairs to one or two shaykhs only. They intimidate others by posting on social media, “Are you happy with returning to so-and-so shaykh for arbitration between us?” Since when is that from the Salafī methodology?

Then as if to deflect from the reality of what he is doing, practically speaking, he refers to the commendations of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd, and makes it look like as if I am the one who is saying that these commendations are equated with what Maʾribī said in restricting all daʿwah affairs to one or two shaykhs.

I of course am free of this, as I have never done this, and it is not possible to read this from the article in question at all. In reality, it is al-Rifāʿī and his likes who are behaving like this and treating these commendations in this way. They are missing the point of the article, and trying to turn this matter into something else.

02  Nowhere have Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd said that Salafīs in any country should refer all their affairs to Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī, and that all the affairs of jarḥ and taʿdīl and all of the disputes between them should return to just one shaykh. There is nothing in the commendations they have given, whether for Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī or anyone else for that matter, which grants this special status of being returned to in these affairs.

However, there are people, and perhaps al-Rifāʿī is one of them, who actually think that these commendations do mean that. In other words, the intent of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd is that we must exclusively return to Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī for all matters of jarḥ and taʿdīl and arbitrations in disputes, affairs of daʿwah and so on, and that we can’t really refer to anyone else, because Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī is the sole inheritor and successor (khalīfah) and the only kabīr (senior) left in the entire Salafī daʿwah worldwide.

This is what these people are saying, and until now, we have not seen from Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī a renunciation or disassociation from these exaggerations concerning him. But, it is possible they have not reached him.

And here I make it clear, that in discussing this matter, I certainly do not intend any type of disrespect, as much as al-Rifāʿī and his likes will try to portray. However, these are frank discussions related to important points of methodology based on clear statements of the most senior scholars of our era. And it appears that these people are stretching commendations and saying things that Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd did not say or intend.

Thus, when this faction says, “return to the major scholars”, they only mean one or two shaykhs, and not what the average Salafī understands by this statement. And whoever does not agree with this, and does not submit to this notion—that all affairs of daʿwah, disputes and affairs of disparagement and appraisal of individuals are returned to one shaykh—he is treated as misguided and an opposer of the “Major Scholars” and one who intends to belittle them.

03  So does al-Rifāʿī say, “Yes, this is what I call to, this is what Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd intended [that one shaykh is returned to in all affairs affecting Salafīs].”? If yes, we thank him for the confirmation and in reality, he would then be the one who equates the sayings of these scholars (in their commendations) with the speech of al-Maʾribī. Consequently, al-Rifāʿī's confirmation would then mean that there is contradiction in the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd, since they would be calling to that which they otherwise reject as partisanship and splitting.

However, to us, this contradiction is impossible.

Or does he say, “No, we do not call to that and this is not what Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd intended by their commendations.” In which case, he is in agreement with the main point of the Brixton Contract article and in agreement with Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd, that specifying just one or two shaykhs for these affairs exclusively is from partisanship.

In that case, the question is raised: Why did the article bother you in the first place then? Why would you even say what you said if you wholeheartedly agree with the manhaj point being explained by Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd in the article?

What's bothered you so much then?

04  In essence, al-Rifāʿī has displayed academic and intellectual dishonesty by misleading the reader into thinking that I am the one who is equating the commendations of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd with the speech of al-Maʾribī in tying the Salafīs of the UK to just two shaykhs. However, this is nonsensical, since I am the first to deny that when these scholars give commendations for a shaykh, that they are intending to say that all of our affairs and disputes should return back to that one shaykh.

However, I fear that this may be the actual belief and understanding of al-Rifāʿī and his likes. The matter is simple. All that al-Rifāʿī needs to do is to make it clear by answering the question: Are you interpreting these commendations of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd to mean that Salafīs in all places should be referring back to one shaykh in their problems, disputes and in daʿwah affairs in general? In that case, you are the one equating between these commendations and the speech of al-Maʾribī, not me.

And if you are not, then why are you so upset at the article and the clear point of methodology being made by Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd in their speech which I quoted? Why should you be upset at this speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ?

In reality, what al-Rifāʿī and his likes are trying to say is that when this type of speech from Shaykh Rabīʾ (حفظه الله) is published and brought to the attention of Salafīs, it is a call to the desertion (tazhīd) of scholars, which reveals a lot about this way of thinking.

However, I call to only to that which Shaykh Rabīʿ and the scholars in general call to, which is that we treat all the mashāyikh of Ahl al-Sunnah as our sources and reference points and we benefit from them all and we do not create divisions by specifying some, exclusively, over others, for certain affairs, such as daʿwah affairs, disputes, arbitrations and the likes.

However, it appears that this is seen as “calling to desertion of scholars” to some people, and we have to wonder why.

Closing Notes

From the traits of the Ḥaddādīyyah that Shaykh Rabīʿ spoke about and explained are: that they fabricate lies against their opponents, twist their words, and misrepresent their speech. They do not desire advice or correction, but destruction of those whom they perceive as obstacles. They violate the basic standards of academic and intellectual honesty, without which genuine and sincere dialogue, discussion, advice and correction is not even possible, and which only pollutes the atmosphere even further.

What al-Rifāʿī has done is to use commendations of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd in a way that they did not intend and then he got upset with the article regarding the Brixton Contract because in reality, it is what he and his likes are effectively calling to (referring all affairs of daʿwah, disputes, jarḥ and taʿdīl etc. to one or two shaykhs) and then he makes the accusation that simply to quote the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd to refute this type of partisanship (taḥazzub), is to accuse Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd of the very same thing they are refuting, merely because they gave commendations to a particular shaykh. This demonstrates a mind that is unable to think clearly and rationally and which overturns the realities.

Shaykh Rabīʿ (حفظه الله) said:^[2]

These are from the traits of Ḥaddādiyyah that Shaykh Rabīʿ warned us against, and it should not surprise us one bit—if it is established—that al-Rifāʿī’s background, history, nurturing and emergence are from the dens of the Ḥaddādite extremists such as ʿAbd Allāh al-Jarbūʿ, because this indicates the effect of past nurturing on an individual, even after he renounces that way. This needs investigating as I said at the beginning of this article, so that we we can better understand the nature of his writings and activities in this matter.

It also raises other deeper questions.

The Moral of the Story

Sometimes its better not to speak so as not to give your game away and expose yourself, than to speak and confirm what was suspected of you. But not everybody is wise, and you get people like ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī who do not really seek the truth, upon clear principles that are applied consistently and equally. On the contrary, they have ulterior motives.

In summary

With Allāh’s tawfIq, it seems like the clarification I posted on 10 May 2025 (and accompanying notes) took the wind out of their activities, cut the fuel from their fire and halted them in their pursuit of trying to expel me from Salafiyyah, which was clearly their objective. Now, unhappy and angry, they are resorting to cheap shots such as this one from ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʾī, but only exposing themselves further in the process.

It is unclear why he is unhappy that it should be explained through the speech of the major scholars of the era that tying Salafīs to just one or two shaykhs in all of their affairs, including disputes and disparagement of individuals is from partisanship. He interprets this falsely as “desertion of scholars” and ascribes this to me, following the same path as his companion of lies and oppression.

Update (November 2025)

Recently, one of them went as far as to give Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī the title of “Shaykh al-Islām of the era”. He did repent from this exaggeration, and this is just evidence that this exaggeration is not a figment of the imagination but something real and tangible, it is obligatory to reject this type of exaggeration, and it is not a belittlement or attack against anyone. Read more here.

In short, there are those who unjustly criticise, attack, belittle and defame scholars, shaykhs and students of knowledge, above and beyond what their flaws and errors may necessitate. Then there are those who exaggerate in them and go beyond the bounds, by elevating their status beyond what it is. Not only that, they treat commendations (tazkiyāt) as merchandise and as weapons to intimidate and silence those who proceed upon the middle path.

The middle path is to take from them as a whole, the knowledge they are competent in, in whatever agrees with the Qurʾān, the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf, and to not accept any errors they may fall into, while fulfilling their right of advice and correction, with good manners, where that is required, for the one who is able to do that from the people of knowledge.

Update (7 January 2026)

Someone who has missed the point of this article has claimed that I have contradicted myself in that whereas I used to previously say that we must return to the scholars who have a deep-rooted speciality in certain fields, such as tribulations, and that now I am saying that there are many mashāyikh, and that we can benefit from them all without specification or exclusivity.

This person is confused, and sees a contradiction where there isn’t one. To explain his confusion are the following points:

01  The Brixton Contract entry is about restricting the affairs of daʿwah and what that comprises of referring differences for resolution to just one or two specific shaykhs. The scholars declared that to be ḥizbiyyah, and this is also the point of this article, and this is precisely what is in the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ cited towards the beginning of the article. We are free to refer affairs to any shaykh of choice, whether it be in disputes, or arbitrations, or advice regarding affairs of daʿwah and so on, and not just to one shaykh.

02  This in no way negates a separate issue which is that there are shaykhs who may have specialisms and who can be referred to for that, whether it be in the Qurʾān sciences, or ḥadīth, or tafsīr, or ḥalāl and ḥarām, or disparagement of groups and parties. For example, Shaykh Rabīʿ in his refutations of Sayyid Quṭb and al-Maʾribī would be an example, he wrote the most and was most knowledgeable, so we refer back to him and his works. Likewise, it does not negate that there scholars who are specified for major affairs such as tribulations that affect Muslim nations, and it is the scholars who are appointed by the state, such as the Mufī and the Hayʾah Kibār al-ʿUlamā, and scholars of the level and calibre of Shaykh al-Luḥaydān, Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shayhk ʿAbd al-Muḥsin, who are referred to in these affairs, and not Shaykh al-Bukhārī and Dr. ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadi who have not demonstrated competence and coherence in such arenas, especially in light of recent events.

In short, the article is addressing the clear attempt by certain directions to tie the daʿwah in Britain and other places to Shaykh al-Bukhārī and Dr. ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, with their insistence (through open threats and intimidation) that our issues and disputes be taken back specifically to Shaykh al-Bukhārī, something which we never accepted 20 years ago, and do not accept today.

This is not to belittle anyone, but just to state the plain truth, which might be bitter for some.

While we have maintained respect for Shaykh al-Bukhārī, as someone commended for possessing knowledge, he was never directly involved in our daʿwah, nor did we make him a reference point for our affairs due to prior tensions from the Tahir Wyatt and Madeenah students fitnah which was mishandled by Shaykh al-Bukhārī and Shaykh al-Raddādī before the senior scholars made the affairs clear and put and end to the tribulation.

The senior scholars who are the foundation of our daʿwah from the 1990s, for the Salafī methodology and its application, to whom we referred back to during tribulations and for advice and guidance are the following:

—Shaykh ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Bāz (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Ibn ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Muqbil bin Hādi al-Wadiʿī (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān (حفظه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Aḥmad al-Najmī (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Zayd al-Madkhalī (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah Ṣāliḥ al-Luḥaydān (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghudayān (رحمه الله)
—Shaykh ʿAllāmah ʿUbayd al-Jābirī (رحمه الله)

Footnotes