Shaykh Bilāl al-Sālimī: Shifting Stances Cause Confusion Within the Daʿwah and Bewilderment Among Students of Knowledge

And within it: An Exoneration for Shaykh ‘Ali al-Hudhayfi al-‘Adani

Original post, 28 December 2025

All Praise is for Allāh, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allāh, his family, his companions, and those who follow him.

To proceed:

Like many others, I heard the response given by Shaykh al-Bukhārī, may Allah pardon him, regarding the issue of the legitimate ruler in Yemen. I found his response very strange, especially because it contained unconvincing arguments and assertions that were not based on the precision necessitated by the established principles of Ahl al-Sunnah.

It was as if the question was in one valley and the answer to it in another valley. I found this approach to be highly problematic and baffling, especially after (his) prolonged silence (in this matter).

However, one of the virtuous (people), may Allāh reward him with good, made me aware of another point worthy of reflection, which is that much of what Shaykh al-Bukhārī has stated today, or alluded to, or put forward in a timid manner had, as a matter of fact, been clearly and openly expressed in the past by Shaykh Abū ʿAmmar ʿAli al-Ḥudhayfī al-ʿAdanī, may Allāh grant him success. At that time, however, Shaykh ʿAli was met with harsh denunciation, belittlement, and attacks on his intentions and motives.

What distresses the people of fairness—and a point of pause (and reflection) for students of knowledge—is to recall the intense, sustained attacks previously launched by Shaykh al-Bukhari and his associates from Aden against Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī al-ʿAdani.

These attacks were not due to any error in his foundational principles or any deviation in his methodology. Rather, they stemmed from his steadfast adherence, at that time, to the position of recognising the legitimate authority (of Yemen) as well as his clear stance regarding the Coalition (led by Saudi Arabia) at a time when (people’s) voices were muddled and positions were unsettled.

It reached the point where Shaykh ʿAlī’s writings were described (by Shaykh al-Bukhārī) as “the kind of writing not (even) produced by children”—a remark containing explicit disparagement and blatant humiliation, which befits neither scholarly discourse nor Salafī methodology, and which ought to have been rooted (instead) in justice and fairness.

In this matter, Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī al-ʿAdanī, may Allāh preserve him, set forth an example of steadfastness in upholding what he perceives to be the truth, alongside clarity of expression and a sense of responsibility for his words. Neither the severity of his opponents (towards him) nor the changing realities of the situation prevented him from expressing his position.

So may Allāh reward him for his truthfulness and his patience. We ask Allāh to make his knowledge beneficial and to grant him the best of rewards for his endurance and exemplary conduct.

Yet today, we are met with a sudden shift in discourse and a change in direction: Shaykh al-Bukhārī, may Allāh grant him success, has himself begun to advocate for legitimate authority.

However, this is done without clarity or steadfastness; rather, it is marked by apprehension, embarrassment, and hesitant phrasing, as if the words are being forced out, rather than stemming from genuine conviction.

This brings us to an essential question which cannot be avoided: If legitimate authority was considered invalid yesterday, how has it become the truth today? And if advocating for it was once dismissed as “childish naivety,” how has it now become the very position being advocated?

Furthermore, if Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī was indeed mistaken and misguided on this matter, why was his error not addressed with proof, instead of resorting to personal attacks and mockery?

Returning to the truth is a virtue. One is not to be censured for it—on the contrary, it is a praiseworthy act. What is truly blameworthy—and entirely so—is to disparage someone who arrived at the truth before you, only to later adopt that same position years down the line, without offering an apology, showing fairness, or acknowledging one’s own error.

By Allāh, this is not from the methodology of the Salaf.

Rather, the Salaf used to love (and accept) the truth, regardless of who brought it. They recognised the worth of others, and their differences never led them to commit injustice. If Shaykh ʿAli was correct, it is obligatory to acknowledge that for him. If he was mistaken, ten his error should be pointed out with knowledge and justice, not through humiliating disparagement, followed later by a silent, unacknowledged adoption of his (very) view.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Mahdī said:

We were at a funeral attended by ʿUbayd Allāh bin al-Ḥasan al-ʿAnbarī—who was the Qādī (judge) of Baṣrah at the time, and a man of great stature and esteem among his people. He spoke on a matter and made a mistake. I, being quite young at the time, spoke up, saying: “That is not the case, you should refer to the report (athar) (in the matter).” The people around me reacted sharply, but ʿUbayd Allāh intervened, saying: “Leave him. What is the correct view, then?” I explained it to him, and he replied: “You are right, young man. I will adopt your view.”

As occurs in Ḥilyah al-Awliyāʾ by Abū Nuʿaym, 9/6.

Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) wrote in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (13/34):

Al-Hafiḍh ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī authored a book detailing the errors made by al-Hākim. When al-Ḥākim came across the work, he began reading it to the public, acknowledging the merit of ʿAbd al-Ghanī, thanking him for his contribution, and adopting the correct positions that ʿAbd al-Ghanī had pointed out—may Allāh have mercy on them both.

ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī, may Allāh have mercy on him, spoke highly of the attitude of al-Ḥākim, may Allah have mercy on him, stating:

When I refuted the errors found in Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Hakim’s (work) ‘al-Madkhal’, he sent a word to thank me and pray for me. I realised then that he was a man of sound intellect.

This is recorded in al-Dhahabī’s Siyar Aʾlām al-Nubalaʾ (17/270).

In conclusion:

Such inconsistent (shifting) stances, fluctuating between a silence resembling the silence of the graves regarding significant issues alongside suppression of speech and a hesitant, timid reluctance to state (clearly) what is perceived to be the truth do not serve the Salafi daʿwah in any way.

On the contrary, they foster doubts regarding the sincerity of a person’s speech and erode people’s trust in those who give advice. [Such shifting stances] demonstrate that when positions taken during critical times are not rooted in firm, knowledge-based foundations, but instead shift according to the changing circumstances, they inevitably lead to confusion and intellectual bewilderment among students of knowledge.

This fuels animosity between them, divides them into factions and parties, and fosters mutual recrimination. Instead of uniting around the seeking of knowledge and performing righteous action, individuals become engrossed in endless disputes, until the seeking of knowledge itself is abandoned, time is wasted, and a new generation is raised to focus on conflicting opinions rather than grounding themselves in foundational principles.

It is from proper conduct (adab) towards the daʿwah and its students, indeed, it is an obligatory form of sincere advice for the sake of Allāh, His Messenger, and the believers to carefully consider the impact of one’s words and the ultimate consequences of one’s stance.

Students must never be treated as fuel for experiments (in the daʿwah) or as a testing ground for one’s own shifting positions.

Indeed, frivolity regarding one’s stances is far more dangerous than merely erring in them. Likewise, inconsistency or confusion in one’s public statements inflicts a deeper wound and a more profound impact than a clear, identifiable error, which can be addressed with knowledge and justice.

We ask Allāh to grant us and our brothers sincerity towards Him, justice in our dealings with others, steadfastness upon the truth, and the ability to return to the truth with humility and courage, rather than with shame or timidity. All praise is due to Allāh, Lord of the Worlds.

Written by: Abū al-ʿAbbās Bilāl bin ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Sālimī, may Allāh pardon him. Alexandria, Egypt, may Allah protect it, and all Muslim lands, from every harm and evil. Sunday, 8 Rajab al-Fard, 1447 AH.

Notes

Matter of fact discussions that lift confusion and expose concealed realities, leading to prominence of the truth and its separation from error and falsehood is welcomed by every sincere seeker of truth, as long as they are founded upon truth and justice, and are based on scholarly discourse.

Treating average Salafīs, rather, students of knowledge, as if they are too dumb to understand these matters, is demeaning and belittling. It is actually the role of those with knowledge and understanding to sufficiently explain these matters in order to lift the confusion and end the controversy, especially in relation to mighty foundations of the religion, where truth has clearly been discerned from error and falsehood.

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) said:^[1]

Because when you see people rushing into tribulations and falling into innovations and misguidance and you are silent, and you say: “This is backbiting”, this is treachery and deception, that you see people falling into tribulations like moths falling into the fire, and you are silent—mā shāʾ Allāh—this is false piety, this is the piety of the ignorant, the misguided… the youth of the ummah and the people were not ruined except by silence towards falsehood— mā shāʾ Allāh—he flexes his muscles among the Muslims, and you do not move, you are still…

From the greatest of misguidance is what relates to rulership, legitimate authority, and rebellion and the various doubts presented used to justify methodological violations and confuse the youth. Such doubts are being actively promoted among the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah as we speak, both in the east and the west.

The following should be noted:

01 This article was written by Shaykh Bilāl al-Sālimī on the day that Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī issued a short recorded statement when the Saudi coalition issued an ultimatum to the STC forces—who are rebels engaged in khurūj (revolt) against legitimate authority—and subsequently launched attacks against them. However, in this statement he spoke vaguely, and did not explicitly name the legitimate ruler, and this appears to be the position of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group, they do not explicitly affirm legitimate authority by name.

When legitimate authority is explicitly mentioned by name, then many other things fall into place, such as: to whom obedience is rightfully due, and who is complicit in rebellion, and who is the aggressor and oppressor and so on. Hence, this type of evasion and chosen ambiguity is highly suspicious.

Prior to this, Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī was mocked and humiliated for the same position that Shaykh al-Bukhārī acknowledged after a period of silence lasting many years, and during which, despite being requested many times by Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī to intervene, allowed ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group to engage in a vicious war against Shaykh ʿAlī. His crime being venerating, defending and calling to the foundations of the Sunnah, in veneration of the Sharīʿah and in preservation of stability and security, and protection of lives, which went against the political ambitions of the Aden shaykhs, which aligned with those of the traitor Aidarous al-Zubaydī and the misguided Khārijite Hānī Burayk.

The subversive activities of this group led by ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, align with the goals of the aḥzāb against legitimate authority, contrary to the interests of a Muslim nation already besieged by conflict. From the shaykhs who have criticised this group are those who resemble these activities with those of the Khārijites who contend against legitimate authority.

The only reason shaykhs like Shaykh ʿAlī came out with open criticism is because he exhausted the avenues of advice and patience for numerous years, and all he received in return was mockery and humiliation.

02 From here, a difference has arisen between:

—a) Those who convey the truth that has already become apparent and is as clear as the daylight sun as to who is right and who is wrong, and who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor, and who advocated for foundations and who opposed the foundations, and who needs to repent and clarify, and who needs to be supported and thanked, this being the immediate, direct and shortest way to end the fitnah, as has been made clear by the people of knowledge, upon the basis that no one is above the truth, rather, that everyone is subject to evaluation by Book, the Sunnah, and the way of the Salaf, and that the only exemptions made to this are by the Ṣūfīs.

—b) And those who believe they can rectify someone even after the critiquing shaykhs exhausted the avenues in private, only to be met with disdain and humiliation. They are free to try (as there is no conflict between both approaches, as each pursues a legislated objective) but there is no right to silence, gatekeep, or seek narrative control over others, while pursuing what may be justifiably considered, in the view of the critics who have exhausted this avenue already, a pipe-dream, except as Allāh, the Turner of the hearts, wills.

Further, such efforts—when they are not wholly transparent—may be nothing more than a scheme to provide an escape route for the errant and oppressive, wherein they are allowed to backtrack and make admissions and excuses in private, in complete secrecy, but not be subject to Allāh’s law, when it comes to retracting, repenting and clarifying openly as a means of ending the fitnah and the oppression, and returning the rights to those to whom they are due, thereby serving to end the differing, splitting and enmity among Ahl al-Sunnah caused by the failure to abide by justice and give Ahl al-Sunnah the respect due to them.

This may be tantamount to playing games with the Sharīʿah of Allāh and may resemble the way of the Jews of selective justice, wherein the standards are suspended for some, allowing them to escape lightly with respect to mighty, serious affairs, whereas others are blamed, convicted and vilified for minor issues. This type of injustice brings wrath and punishment to the ranks.

Refer to Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī’s stern warning about such double standards and corrupt scales of justice.

03 One of the direct causes of confusion, weakness and the inability (or lack of desire) to advocate for the truth, is concealment of the truth from people, venerating personalities and statuses, and granting them special privileges and immunity from justified criticism, and not standing against blatant oppression and blatant violations of the foundations of the Sunnah and the Salafī methodology in a sufficient and timely manner.

When this happens, the moral high ground is lost, and as the truth has not been energised through support and advocacy, the adversaries (with bigotry towards the critiqued) gain an advantage and feel emboldened, and thereafter, its only a matter of time before Allāh’s punishment descends through disarray and confusion, exactly as Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfi warned, some months after the above article of Shaykh Bilāl, on 7 April 2026.

04 In a more general sense, what Shaykh Bilāl pointed out close to a year ago is extremely important and pertinent. It is the damaging effect of shifting positions (flip-flopping), wherein there is a sudden, unexplained change in position, and wherein people act as if they never had a contrary position prior to it, conveniently forgetting their past statements, actions and inactions. This causes tremendous confusion and lack of trust among the people, and especially the students of knowledge, they become bewildered and lost. This then becomes the cause of controversy and ongoing disputation, and the foundational matters become side-lined.

05 When positions are shifted, then this needs to be explained to the people in a clear and transparent manner. If we were upon error previously, then we should retract it and say so, and not let pride and arrogance get the better of us. And if we were upon truth, and we’ve left it for error, then that is a worse situation, and we seek refuge in Allāh from it and ask Him to protect us from such things.

06 Of special note are the words of Shaykh Bilāl, which represent foresight:

Meaning, it is better to err in a clear and identifiable way, than to fall into flip-flopping, stance-shifting, inconsistent, confusing statements and behaviours. The former can be addressed with knowledge and justice, the latter requires much effort and toil to dissect and address accordingly and fuels great confusion.

On a side note, many of the doubts that we are hearing now were already addressed in the articles written by these mashāyikh during late 2025 and early 2026. There is much foresight and insight in those articles. Had those articles been disseminated openly in a timely manner, reaching the average Salafi, we would not be seeing confusion and bewilderment and nor the emboldening of the opposers, who have always been terrified of this (the average Salafi grasping the truth in these matters). This is why they resort to their worn out intellectual terrorism and exaggeration in personalities. Alḥamdulillāh, the average Salafī is not dumb, and is more than capable of seeing right from wrong by virtue of the basic foundations they have learned, and indeed, this is the ground reality.

07 Finally, what Shaykh Bilāl pointed out through the examples he gave from past Imāms such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Mahdī is the humility of scholars when corrected for their errors, and how they are thankful, even if those correcting them are boys, and perhaps they may have been considered children.

This shows, that even in the words (or writings) of children, there can lie the cause of our humility.

Footnotes

1. Majmūʿ Shaykh Rabīʿ (15/435, 437)