Shaykh ʿAlī al-Hudhayfī Calls Out ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī as a Liar
See: The Definition of Lying (Kadhib) and Its Forms
Background: Shaykh ʿAlī al-Hudhayfī held a position regarding remaining behind the legitimate ruler and being on the side of the alliance led by Saudi Arabia and subsequently some differing occurred between him and shaykhs from Aden. During these circumstances, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī did his bit to stir the situation to discredit and demean Shaykh ʿAlī al-Huḍhayfī by spreading lies.
In his 20 minute advice to Ṣalāḥ Kantūsh dated 25 August 2025, Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī called out ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī as a liar twice due to him fabricating and spreading a lie, and causing tribulation thereby.
Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī said:
From the strange recent positions held by Ṣalāḥ Kantūsh is that ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his likes from the liars claimed that I made a covenant between myself and Shaykh al-Bukhārī. I do not know of any covenant (made) between me and Shaykh al-Bukhārī, (and the requirement) that I will come and deliver a lecture. The shaykh requested me verbally in a gathering, there was a discussion between me and Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh in a gathering, he spoke and I replied to him, this was the speech that occurred.
Then ʿArafāt, who was not even present in the gathering, he was not present in the gathering O Ṣalāḥ Kantūsh, he claims that I broke the covenant. He claims, “He has broken the covenant”. I say a word and Ṣalāḥ Kantūsh says a word, and ʿArafāt says a word, and you give preference to ʿArafāt’s speech, who wasn’t present.
So where are the foundations of jurisprudence O Ṣalāḥ Kantūsh? Where are the principles of jurisprudence regarding the onus of proof being upon the claimant and the oath upon the denier?
ʿArafāt makes a claim without being present, he was not in attendance, and I am present, I am the subject of the story, and I tell you that I did not make a covenant with anyone.
Yet despite this, you call me a liar and believe this lying claimant (ʿArafāt). Then after that, I swear by Allāh, besides whom there is no god (worthy of worship), that I did not make a covenant with anyone, but that I said such-and-such and that the shayikh said such-and-such to me, and Allāh knows the truth of what I say, and may the curse of Allāh be upon me if I am lying. Despite this, you were not satisfied with this speech (of mine).
Pardon me for saying so, but this is amazing wickedness (fujūr) O Ṣalāḥ…
Notes
01 That which Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī mentioned here about ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī fabricating lies about things that never took place or were not said, and then spreading them to create tribulation, disputation and separation is similar to what happened in late 2024, when ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī spread lies, fabrications and distortions on social media, drawing Salafīs worldwide into a fitnah, leading to splits, in gross violation of the Salafī methodology. This is among the accumulating evidences for what Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī said, that he is among the liars.
02 ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī has remained eerily silent and has not refuted Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī to date, despite this audio being spread widely. This is because there is in the history of this man what shows that he enters himself into affairs (where there maybe differences between Ahl al-Sunnah) and amplifies the differences through lies (kadhib) and plotting (makr) to make the situation worse than it is. Because he knows this full well, he does not have the guts to respond to Shaykh ʿAlī.[1]
03 From the strange affairs found with those partisan to ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī is that despite Sharīʿah principles, or principles of jurisprudence requiring them to reject the false and baseless speech of ʿArafāt and accept the speech of Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī, they cling to his speech and consider it to be the truth, indicating their partisanship, bigotry and exaggeration in individuals.
This is what Shaykh ʿAlī is pointing out here, and it shows the depths of bigotry and partisanship of these people, that even when the Sharīʿah demands of them to accept the oath of denial from one against whom a claim is made, they do not do so and instead believe a liar who has no evidence for his claim and who was not even present as a witness in order to be able to make a claim in the first place.
In short, this is an illustration (among many others that may come to light) of a type of ḥizbiyyah wherein statuses and personalities govern truth and falsehood, error and correctness, loyalty and disloyalty, not actual evidences and Sharīʿah principles
Note:
The fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī provided a convenient cover for Dr. ʿArafat al-Muḥammadi and allowed some of his past to be buried and forgotten. Sadly, Muḥammad bin Hādī was hasty in declaring others innovators, misguided and cutting them off (tabdīʿ, taḍlīl, tajdīʿ). He got overtaken by his anger and pride, thought his status was sufficient for his speech to be taken, and did not adhere to the Salafī methodology with deliberation and foresight. He was unable to provide evidences that were commensurate with the premature judgements and the huge commotion he caused. He then took digs at Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) and Shaykh ʿUbayd (رحمه الله) when his approach was not accepted by them. As a result of this rashness, he polarised Salafis all across the world, and made a huge mess in the daʿwah, due to not following due process in light of the Salafī methodology.[2]
I cautioned at the time that just because Muḥammad bin Hādī has messed up and deserves rebuke and criticism, it does not mean that ʿArafāt and company are clean. Hence, I never raised or promoted these individuals. They were not given much attention in the UK, Canada, or the US in the years that followed, and this is why they do not have much of a following in these lands (except individuals with grievances and personal ambitions who have latched on to them). Their profiles were only raised in places like continental Europe and the Far East, where the staunchest of his followers can be found.
As ʿArafāt al-Muhammad is prohibited by the Saudi authorities from giving lessons and lectures, and having gatherings (as has been narrated), most of his loyal followers are foreigners from other countries, and he dabbles and meddles in the daʿwah affairs of other countries.
When I wrote many articles regarding the issue during 2017-2018, it was not in defence of ʿArafāt and company, but the Salafī methodology, and I referred to them throughout these articles, not by name, but as students of knowledge who have presumed or actual errors and who are not being dealt with appropriately in accordance with the Salafī methodology. The entire issue was one of methodology and how to deal with Ahl al-Sunnah in such situations. Refer, for example, to the following article:
I made it explicitly clear in all of these writings that the issue was not about presumed or actual mistakes, but about the Salafī methodology and using wisdom and foresight, and thinking about consequences. This was based upon the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ who dealt with such things over and over during the past decades and spoke from experience and tremendous wisdom.
The above article explains the tremendous wisdom possessed by Shaykh Rabīʿ and compares between the way he deals with those who err from Ahl al-Sunnah, and are eventually declared astray and misguided (after much advice and correction), and the disastrous way of Muḥammad bin Hādī and his likes who fail to reach the objective and cause harm and ruin in the process. It is an important read and has a direct bearing upon what ʿArafat al-Muḥammadi has fallen into, save that ʿArafāt is also being caught out for blatant lying and dishonesty.
A person can err and be mistaken, even in great matters, but lying is not excusable and the liar will never prosper.
Footnotes
1. Some of the tribulations of the past may not have taken the direction they went in, had this individual not had his hand in stirring things between shaykhs or between Salafīs, for his own motives or objectives.2. Note that the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī is conveniently used by these people to shield themselves from justified criticism of their words and deeds. When ʿArafāt or his associates are justifiably criticised, they claim that it is the way of the Muṣaʿfiqah.