How the Scholars Dealt With The Fitnah of Ibn Hādī and the Muṣaʿfiqah

THE FITNAH of the Muṣaʿfiqah, an extension of that of the Ḥaddādiyyah, is one in which perceived, alleged or actual mistakes are used to make hasty and unwarranted tabdīʿ of Salafī shaykhs and students by throwing them alongside the people of desires, then, demanding its acceptance and requiring loyalty and disloyalty to be shown around it. Then to test people and spread the issue in every place, thereby dividing Ahl al-Sunnah and their daʿwah across the world, rather, being prepared to burn it to the ground until people accept and act upon your unjustified and oppressive tabdīʿ built on flimsy evidences and submit to your authority.^[1]

From the speech of the senior scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ, Shaykh ʿUbayd, Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمهم الله) regarding Ibn Hādī’s fitnah:

• “He does not have any evidence for his tabdīʿ and his attacks
• “His fitnah affected the world.”
• “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Khāliq’s fitnah is not even a tenth of that of Ibn Hādī’s.”
• “All he has is incitation, causing commotion.”
• “Those who follow Ibn Hādī in false accusation and false statements leave Ahl al-Sunnah.”
• “Love of Allāh precedes love of Ibn Hādī.”
• “Ibn Hādī’s fitnah is more dangerous than that of the Ḥaddādiyyah by tens of times.”
• “We warn from attending his gatherings, he committed a crime against Salafiyyah.”
• “He was put to trial with love of leadership.”
• “I (Shaykh ʿUbayd) have washed my hands from him.”
• “We advised and were patient but he did not return.”
• “Made youth have fanaticism towards him at the expense of loyalty and disloyalty for Allāḥ’s sake.”

The issue, in essence: tabdīʿ of Salafīs without evidence, inculcating ghuluww and taʿaṣṣub towards an individual, testing people, fostering enmities and divisions, and splitting Ahl al-Sunnah all around the world.

This is very different to what Salafī scholars do of refuting those who deviate in the foundations, who bring false principles, or violate the foundations and persist upon that, such as their refutations of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah, ʿAdnān ʿArʿūr, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Khāliq, al-Maʿribī, Maḥmud al-Ḥaddād, Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, and those who ally with groups of innovation such as the Khārijites, or the Ḥarakiyyīn, Ḥizbiyyīn, Ikhwānīs, Ṣūfīs, Tablīgḥīs, Taḥrīrīs and others, shielding and defending them while speaking ill of Ahl al-Sunnah.

These are all clear examples of deviations in foundations, whose evidence was apparent and easily demonstrated through the words and actions of the refuted, and this is why the rulings upon them were taken with acceptance and have remained.

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) said:^[2]

Ibn Hādī opposed this way and began to speak ill of those in his inner circle of students, and he would call people possessing knowledge “Ṣaʿfūq” or “Ṣaʿāfiqah” and ended up saying that “they are (mulḥaqūn) put alongside Ahl al-Ahwāʾ” and similar speech that was considered to be tabdīʿ (heresification) and for which evidence was demanded from him. In the fitnah of Ibn Hādī there are important lessons to be taken.

Below are resources from various scholars and shaykhs who dealt with the issue at the time, these were translated or written during early-2018 when the fitnah reached its peak and Ibn Hādī could not justify his tabdīʿ of Salafī shaykhs and students.

Background

For a couple of years, Ibn Hādī spoke about some of his students, first by insinuation, then it advanced until he likened them to the people of innovation and spoke about them with such descriptions, as occurred in the lecture he gave to an American audience in a particular centre (markaz) in Michigan on 15 Ṣafar 1439, (4 November 2017). There was some private written advice by Shaykh Nizār bin Hāshim (PDF, 16 pages)^[3] which followed, dated 5 Rabīʿ al-Awwal 1439 (23 November 2017) which was sent to him upon the advice of Shaykh Rabīʿ.

Shaykh Rabīʿ advised that the advice be spread openly—[given that the fitnah was open by this time]—but Shaykh Nizār wanted to send it privately first, which he did. Sadly, this incensed Ibn Hādī, and he became puffed up with pride, became more stubborn, and began to lash out even more, now including others in his oppression.

Instead of being grateful and heeding the advice, he rewarded the one who sent it to him, from the first of those to stand up to him and his evil in this way, by saying: "His face is like the back of his head" and "I desire his life and he wants my death."

When Ibn Hādī rejected the advice, the document was spread openly to let the people see the reality of the matter, so they are not dragged behind Ibn Hādī with blind-following. After this, Shaykh Nizār went from being “from the best of people” to a “ṣaʿfūq, kadhdhāb, with little manners who is to be warned against” which was said by Ibn Hādī in his infamous lecture. It was after this advice and its rejection, that a clear position was taken against him.

Over the next few months, his direction became apparent (stubbornness upon falsehood and refusal to recant from his oppressive tabdīʿ and taḍlīl) and an open and uncompromising stance was taken against him in early 2018, after his rejection of the private advice and that of others and his “breaking the silence” lecture.

Summary of the issues and foundations involved or violated:

• Oppressive tabdīʿ of Salafīs without evidence^[4]
• Demanding loyalty and disloyalty around this tabdīʿ
• Calling for boycotting of Salafīs upon this tabdīʿ
• Splitting the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah
• Making the issue a trial (miḥnah) to test people.

Questions From Tunisia in March 2018

In early 2018, after it had become clear that Ibn Hādī has no basis for his campaign of warning against a group of his own students, and after he rejected the advice of Shaykh Nizār bin Hāshim and others, there was an important set of questions and answers in which Shaykh Rabīʿ explained the correct legislative stance that must be taken. This was months before he wrote his own article, challenging Ibn Hādī to provide his evidences (see below). These are some of the questions in that meeting which took place on 10 March 2018 by a group of students of knowledge from Tunisia.

Question: “Our Shaykh, may Allāh preserve you, there are some youth present in Tunisia who revile their brothers and say of them [that they are] ‘Ṣaʿāfiqah’ (paupers in knowledge), and ‘Zaʿānif’ (riff-raff) and they show partisanship towards Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī.”

Shaykh Rabīʿ:

Question: “This tribulation has spread in Tunisia.”

Shaykh Rabīʾ:

Question: “Our Shaykh, some of our brothers who are students in Madīnah [University], they left the gathering of Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī and so they [the followers of this oppressive way] announced a boycott of them.

Shaykh Rabīʿ:

Question: “Some of them—when we argue with them and say there is no evidence—they say, ‘The evidences will soon come’.”

Shaykh Rabīʿ:

Note: The Shaykh indicated here that when one part of the body (individual or group of Salafīs) complains, then rest of the body reacts with sleeplesness and fever to put it aright. And this should be most pronounced among Ahl al-Sunnah, as they are upon the truth in all spheres of religion, and hence, have the greatest of zeal and jealousy for truth and its people.

Question: “When we speak to one of them, he says: ‘I am silent, I will not enter into this tribulation’.”

Shaykh Rabīʿ:

Note: Resorting to silence in such a context, and claiming that you are not required to say anything because you never had a position on the issue is incorrect, especially, if the issue at hand concerns you and has reached you and your people, and your voice is one that is heard and listened to. This would be desertion of the truth, and in this case, if Ibn Hādī and his evil was left alone and people said: “It does not concern me, I will stay silent”, then there would be greater confusion.

Salafis of UK Take a United, Galvanizing Stance Against Oppression in March 2018

At that point, and with Allāh’s praise, the Salafīs of the UK, took a clear, uncompromising, unifying, galvanising strength on the issue, without fearing the blame of the blamers, nor any care for the status of the one who opposed the methodology and harmed Ahl al-Sunnah and their daʿwah a great deal.

A joint statement was issued on 26 March 2018 in both Arabic and English, approved by Shaykh Rabīʿ, in which the main callers and teachers, along with 20 mosques and centres in the UK made open rejection of what Ibn Hādī had fallen into:

This statement—made three months after Ibn Hādī’s rejection of private advice in November 2017 and three months before Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed Ibn Hādī openly in June 2018—sent a message in the English-speaking Salafī daʿwah that such behaviour will not be tolerated, not even from Shaykh ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Ibn Hādī with whom there was a very strong prior relationship spanning since the early 1990s, and who was held with great respect among senior scholarship.

This is because the law applies to everyone equally, to the ruler, the subject, the scholar and the layman alike, and likewise the honours of all Muslims are inviolable, whether they are paupers or nobles, common-folk, students or scholars.

Due to this timely stance against oppression and violation of the Salafī methodology, the fitnah of Ibn Hādī never affected the English-speaking daʿwah in the West. There were only a few rabble-rousers who fizzled away, but the daʿwah was untouched, and the fitnah was quashed by Allāh’s bounty. The Salafīs remained united, because:

• in clarity there is unity and strength,
• in upholding truth in a timely manner there is support and blessing from Allāh, and
• in denouncing oppression, justice remains and provides shade to everyone.

When these things are not present, then we can be assured of their opposites. Weakness, differing and more injustices on top of the very first one, as punishment and recompense.

This also shows the importance of standing up for the truth, after the scholars and shaykhs who are involved in the issue at hand have made it clear. Meaning, those who have directly engaged with the critiqued individual (or individuals) and have the most knowledge regarding the matter.

It would have been erroneous for someone to say: “Let’s return to Shaykh Muḥammad al-ʿAqīl and Shaykh al-Ruḥaylī” who are sympathetic to the critiqued for advice on how to handle the matter after the truth had already become clear, and the way of the errant has been clearly demonstrated by one or more from Ahl al-Sunnah from the people of knowledge.

This is because the knowledge of these shaykhs is general and not specific, and they have only seen the good, and not the errors and deviations from the methodology that the critics have. However, Shaykh Rabīʿ did advise al-Ruḥaylī, but he did not accept the truth with its evidences, indicating that while earlier he may have been excused due to lack of detailed knowledge in the matter, he did not uphold the truth when it was made clear to him.

Hence, using the slogan, “we must return to the scholars”, but without specifically saying who those scholars are, or intending scholars other than the ones who have established the detailed criticism, a jarḥ mufassar, based on violation of foundations (uṣūl) backed by evidences, with full knowledge of its correctness, then this is not the way of Ahl al-Sunnah in these matters.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said, in response to a doubt of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī and his followers regarding “returning to the scholars”:^[5]

Further, it is not required that other scholars have to agree, because the scholar himself is not the proof, it is the evidence and application of principles that supercede everything and everyone else, including senior scholars. The refutations against Safar and Salmān and others were taken with acceptance, despite the presence of senior scholars who continued to praise them for a period, indicating that it is the principles and the evidences that one is obligated to follow.

When the evidence becomes clear, it is obligatory upon everyone who knows it, to support it, even if he has enmity or differing with the one who brought it, and even if it has been brought against the for whom he has love and loyalty. This is what we know as “Salafiyyah”.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:^[6]

Here, Shaykh Rabīʿ advised the students to independently study, and not be blind-followers of others. That they should read, investigate, comprehend and seek the truth in the matter. He did not say vote on the matter, or build a consensus for the position you have already taken, or the approach you have decided upon, or the view that suits you and is least inconvenient for you.

Further still, “fitnah” is when the truth and falsehood have not become clear, when the errant has not been distinguished from the correct, the oppressor from the oppressed through the foundational principles (and not the status of any scholar).^[7]

This is why Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī and Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā said in their August 2018 article, addressing Ibn Hādī::

When the criticising scholars and shaykhs have made the affair clear, then they should be returned to and consulted for advice and guidance on how to write or convey the stance which has become binding to take, as they are most knowledgeable of it, as they are the ones clarifying the errors and deviations. Hence, the Salafīs of the UK took the stance against oppression, and then made it known to send a message of zero tolerance for this conduct within the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah, regardless of the status of the person involved.

Likewise, when a scholar, or group of scholars who are directly involved in the matter, themselves, openly state the truth regarding the criticised, and publish and disseminate their materials for public consumption, having laid out all the evidences, after the processes of dialogue, advice, correction, sincere appeals and so on—in compliance with principles of methodology—then there is no blame for anyone translating or conveying what is in those writings after the truth with its evidences has become clear and the scholars with that proof have already spoken openly and issued warnings.

This constitutes returning to the scholars and is not “preceding the scholars” in any way. This is because the truth has already become clear, and they openly spoke about it, and disseminated it. Thereafter, others are required to support and uphold it, so that others are not deceived and misled.

Muḥammad bin Hādī had a lofty status, respected by senior scholars in Riyāḍ, likewise in Jāzān, Makkah, Madīnah, and thousands upon thousands of students were attached to him, given his decades long recognition as a staunch and astute person of the Sunnah. That did not prevent a clear, open stance being taken, when he opposed the foundations and refused to turn back, and all of this revolved around one main issue: how to deal with Ahl al-Sunnah and their errors.

Questions from Jazan in May 2018

Another meeting took place on 9 Ramaḍān 1439, corresponding to 24 May 2018, in which students of knowledge came from Jāzān, a place where Ibn Hādī has lofty standing. They sought advice from Shaykh Rabīʿ about the situation that had developed and what their stance should be. I present details of that meeting which was translated and published shortly after.

Note: This is regarding shaykhs and students from a stronghold of Ibn Hādī, in Jāzān, and Shaykh Rabīʿ said that withholding from the matter, not making a position known, that it is falsehood. This is because truth has already become clear from error through the efforts of the critics, and here, every person who has grasped the realities, and has the ability to speak and clarify should do so in order to protect and preserve the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah.

What happened here is that in a social media post, Ibn Hādī’s name had been put alongside prominent individuals who had been refuted in the past for their deviation, and that person was rebuked for it. So Shaykh Rabīʿ replied that the fitnah of Ibn Hādī is more severe than that of the Ḥaddādiyyah of the past. This shows that by this time, before Shaykh Rabīʿ wrote his open letter to Ibn Hādī in June 2018, the obligatory stance had been taken regarding his evil.

Then, when asked about those who defend Muḥammad bin Hādī or spread his statements, whether they to be sat with and can they be listened to, the Shaykh said:

This account of the meeting that was posted on 23 Ramaḍān was translated and posted on manhaj.com the next day, along with numerous other materials, that were posted as the situation evolved.

Shaykh Rabīʿ's Open June 2018 Letter

Some months later, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī wrote in his letter addressed to Ibn Hādī, dated 3 Shawwāl 1439, corresponding to 17 June 2018 and it was published on Sahab.Net.

In the rest of this letter, Shaykh Rabīʿ asks many questions of Ibn Hādī asking him to provide evidences for the claims that he made, at the end of which he rebuked him, told him he has zero evidences to justify his tabdīʿ, and asked him to fear Allāh.

This letter was three months after a clear, open stance had already been taken when Shaykh Rabīʿ said it was obligatory to reject falsehood and oppression to those who were saying: “I am silent, I will not enter this tribulation.”

Note: A situation is a confusing “fitnah” when truth is not clear from falsehood. It is necessary to refrain during that period and leave the critiquing scholars to deal with the errors and deviations, in trying to rectify them with advice and patience. However, when the truth becomes clear from falsehood, the errant from the correct, the oppressor from the oppressed by one or more scholars, with evidences, and the era of advice and patience has been expired, which can be a sitting, or a day, or a week, or a month, it is no longer a confusing “fitnah” and a clear position is required from those who know and who have influence and sway over others so that more and more people are not dragged behind the one refuted, and his partisans and fanatics do not spread more confusion and misguidance.

Shaykh Bin Baz (رحمه الله) said in his lecture on the position of a believer regarding tribulations:^[8]

Pay attention to this statement. Any fitnah arising from any Muslim, or innovator is examined by the believer so he can stand with the one who is correct. This way, the truth is supported and the affairs of the Muslims remain in order, and the errant person, the wrongdoer, the oppressor, is repelled from what he fell into .And when this is not done by the believers, what happens? Truth is not supported, affairs of Muslims become disorderly, and the errant and the oppressors, such as Ibn Hādī and his followers in this case, continue on their path, wreaking havoc, and tearing Ahl al-Sunnah apart, more and more.

He (رحمه الله) also said in another place:^[9]

Thus, the statement of “keeping out of fitnah” when the truth is already clear, without any ambiguity, as to who is correct and who is in error and who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor, and concealing these facts and realities and failing to uphold them so that the affairs of Ahl al-Sunnah remain in order, is out of place, and not in line with the advice based on principles of the scholars in previous tribulations. Rather, it is desertion and dereliction of duty.

Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī and Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā in August 2018

Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله) did not originally take a position, and some of those loyal to Ibn Hādī told him lies about the situation and about some of the Salafī shaykhs in Egypt who had taken a correct position in the fitnah early on, from them, Shaykh Bilāl al-Sālimī, as a result of which he made some speech about Shaykh Bilāl. However, afterwards, when the truth became apparent in detail, the Shaykh took back that speech and, along with Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī, said that making their stance known was binding so that they are not from those who remained silent or concealed the truth in this matter.

Because the clear position of these two shaykhs came later, they were in a position to provide a broader overview of the matter, and this is what we see in their statement, which was also translated shortly after it was released, and parts of which are cited below.

Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī (رحمه الله) and Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله) said:^[10]

This is what Ibn Hādī did, he began to arrange lectures in various countries, drawing people into his fitnah, canvassing for support and enlisting helpers and supports who would become soldiers for his cause, willing to split and destroy their own communities, out of blind fanaticism towards him and defence of him, invoking his status as the driving factor.

Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī on Those Who Remain Silent During Fitan

In his excellent work, “Radd al-Ishkālāt wa Kashf al-Mubhamāt” (1441/2020) regarding the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī, Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī (رحمه الله) placed a few chapters on those who remain silent during tribulations. In the chapter: “The States of Those Who Remain Silent During Fitan” he explains that it is not permissible for the caller who has knowledge and comprehension of the issue and its reality to remain silent from the important duty of calling, clarifying and establishing the proofs and removing the doubts. The shaykh said that if the scholars and the callers do not do that, then when will truth be known from falsehood?

He then says:

The shaykh went on to explain that silence is only for the one who does not know, does not understand and is unable to establish the proof. As for the one who has some knowledge, understanding, ability to clarify, has comprehended the matter, and is able to face up to the tribulation that has reached people and he has people that look up to him, such as students, then is not permissible for him to remain silent, with the argument of “keeping far away from fitnah”, because he in reality is already steeped in it, and is not far away from it (by remaining silent).

He then says:

After this general chapter, he then places another lengthier chapter on those who remain silent in the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī specifically. In order not to prolong the matter, we can summarise it.

The essence of it is that those who remained silent are not excused even if the nature of the innovation of Ibn Hādī is not like the major innovations of the Khārijites, the Rāfiḍah, the Ṣūfiyyah and so on. Despite this, he fell into reviling shaykhs and students, expelling them from Ahl al-Sunnah, splitting Salafīs, and all of this must be shown rejection by the one who has comprehended the matter and is able to do so.

He says that the people of truth are in between categories:

Hence, there are the people of truth, and they are in between the opposers and the deserters. Then he mentions various categories and they are:

Then he explains reality of the silent person who is excused and not reviled for his silence:

Note: This is the one who is excused, and this contrasts with the way of the “Sukūtiyyah”, those who say that since they have not spoken on an issue, neither one way or the other, they are not obligated to say anything. However, they fully comprehend the issues, are aware of right and wrong, hold sway over people, both students and common people, are able to speak and clarify, know that the fitnah has engulfed people and is causing chaos and turmoil around them, but choose not to do so.

Then Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī said:

Note: In the fitnah of Ibn Hādī, Shaykh Rabīʿ distinguished between the Wāḍiḥīn (clear ones) and the Sukūtiyyah (silent ones), those who invoke “no obligation to speak”, “observance of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid” and “avoiding fitnah”. It is Shaykh Rabīʿ who made this important distinction in that fitnah. However, there is a new approach, which extends the approach of Ibrāhīm al-Ruhaylī and his likes, of making Salafīs become fearful and averse to following principles and evidences and upholding the truth. Remaining silent about the fitnah of Ibn Hādī of of tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ, after his stubbornness and rejection was apparent by end of 2017, is not avoiding fitnah or observing the maṣāliḥ and mafāsid. The Wāḍihīn bring clarity, strength of position, upholding of truth, and strength of unity upon clarity, and the Sukūtiyyah bring confusion, bewilderment and desertion of what is necessitated of speech and action.

Summary of the Above

Ibn Hādī unleashed a fitnah among Ahl al-Sunnah in which he made unwarranted tabdīʿ on account of affairs that did not justify it and he was unable to provide any evidences for it. He rejected the advice he received from people, and after Shaykh Nizār’s advice in November 2017, he went even further in his insolence in December 2017 in his infamous lecture of breaking his silence.

From the earliest to take a clear stance were the Salafī callers, teachers, mosques and centres of the UK, despite a very strong and lengthy relationship between Muḥammad bin Hādī and Maktabah Salafiyyah. This was because rejecting and denouncing oppression openly, after persistence upon it has been established, is a legislative obligation, and when this is neglected, Allāh’s wrath is earned and the people are punished with disarray in the ranks. As a result of this timely, firm stance, the Salafī daʿwah in the English speaking world remained intact, by Allāh’s bounty.

There were from the people of knowledge who did not take a stance, having their own circumstances. However, after some months, with more information and speaking to Shaykh Rabīʿ about the issue they saw it an obligation to say the truth so as not to be guilty of blameworthy silence or concealing the truth, despite knowing it. So they openly declared the truth regarding Ibn Hādī and his fitnah.

Points of Note

From all of the above and the various citations from the scholars, the following points can be noted:

01  What is the controversy, its true nature and characterisation.
Internal disputes between Ibn Hādī and his students based on personal issues, past enmities, and seeking domination with an authoritarian demeanour, leading to transgressions and violations of foundations.

02  Have any foundations been violated and what are they?
Tabdīʿ of Salafīs without evidence, loyalty and disloyalty around such oppressive judgements, Ibn Hādī a trial (miḥnah) to test people, and splitting the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah.

03  With whom and where does the truth lie with its evidences?
Ibn Hādī was unable to provide evidences for his tabdīʿ, loyalty and disloyalty around it, and the huge schisms he created. As the onus of proof was upon him, then by default, the truth lies with those who stood against him and his oppression. This became clear through his December 2018 breaking the silence lecture which signaled his open rejection of private advice weeks earlier. Shortly afterwards, Ahl al-Sunnah began to take an open, clear stance, because the truth had become clear.

04  Has one scholar, shaykh or more been through the stages of advice, correction and patient perserverance, where upon the proof is established?
Yes, Shaykh Nizār wrote his advice in November 2017, and he had been advised by others too, and even after Ibn Hādī’s breaking the silence lecture, advice remained ongoing while open warning was being made. This shows that there is no conflict between notification of errors, warning against oppression, and ongoing private advice. The former is for the benefit of Ahl al-Sunnah, so they are not caught up in doubts and falsehood, the latter is for the benefit of the individual concerned.

05  Has one scholar, shaykh or more made open writings to inform people about these errors and violations?
Yes, this began to take place in early 2018, and within the next five months, many others had spoken and written.

06  What about returning to the scholars and leaving the affair in their hands?
Yes, this is true and must be done. However, “returning to the scholars” is a phrase that has been used by the likes of al-Maʾribī and his followers, and likewise, Ibn Hādī who made frequent use of “returning to the senior scholars” during his fitnah, and what they intended was to sideline the critiquing scholars and shaykhs, and go to others who are either sympathetic to them, or do not know the full details, or who have aversion and dislike of the critiquing scholars and shaykhs and perhaps even speech against them. This is a ruse which Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed during the fitnah of al-Maʾribī (see his speech quoted earlier on “returning to scholars”).

07  Does it remain a “fitnah” that one should avoid after the truth has become clear?
No, as the scholars have explained, “fitnah” is when the truth and falsehood are not discernable and it's unclear where the truth lies. Here, people must not delve into it and take sides, and leave it in the hands of the scholars and shaykhs directly involved, who have the most knowledge in the matter. Here, the advice to keep away from “fitnah” is in its place. This would be between 2015 to the end 2017, in relation to the fitnah of Ibn Hādī. However, saying that this is a confusing ”fitnah” after the truth has become clear, which is early 2018, then this is incorrect. It is no longer a confusing ”fitnah” because truth has become distinguished from falsehood. Those who are looked up to, from the shaykhs and students, if the issue has reached their land, or is affecting Ahl al-Sunnah in general, then they must take a clear position and uphold truth. Not doing so is the actual “fitnah” in this stage, and it is desertion of truth and its people, and leads to more evils and confusion.

08  Is it “fitnah” and “splitting and division” to convey the speech of the criticising scholars and shaykhs after the truth has become clear?
No. Whoever said after Ibn Hādī’s rejection of advice and his breaking the silence lecture in December 2017, and the couple of months following that when clear positions began to be taken, such as the one by the Salafīs of the UK in March 2018, that “this is fitnah”, “let’s keep out of it to protect the daʿwah” and, “no refutations should be translated or spread right now”, especially in a place where the fitnah has already reached and has engulfed its people, then all of this is error and out of place. Rather, the fitnah is in this very speech, because the followers of Ibn Hādī were active in spreading their doubts, and reviling and slandering Salafīs in every place, calling to their extreme way, involving ghluluww and taʿaṣṣub to personality and status over truth.

09  But other scholars do not agree and can we take a middle path?
If someone said that we should go back to Shaykh Muḥammad al-ʿAqīl or Shaykh al-Ruḥaylī and others, who were sympathetic to Ibn Hādī and opposed to the critiquing shaykhs, in order to get a "balanced approach" then this would also be an error. It is a type of evasion and a route to undermining the truth that has already been established with concrete evidences by another group of the people of knowledge. If the truth is established by one scholar or shaykh, let a lone a group, it is obligatory to accept them from him and uphold it.

In the fitnah of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah a small number of shaykhs took the lead and exposed them, even while the great scholars, Imāms of the era, were alive, were not fully acquainted in the matter and continued to speak well of those criticised, both during and after their reality had been made clear by others. Eventually, when it came to their knowledge, they also spoke against them, because they saw the evidences and accepted them, as is their way. Hence, choosing another set of scholars to avoid upholding the truth that is with the scholars who criticised with evidences, is a form of evasion and desertion.

10  What about maṣāliḥ and mafāsid?
The issue of benefits and harms (maṣāliḥ and mafāsid) have already been considered and applied by the critiquing scholars and shaykhs during the initial phase of private advice and patience, and the phase of writing and criticising. They would not have made their speech and writings regarding Ibn Hādī open had they not already done this. Rather, after the period of patience has expired, they consider it from the beneficial interest to alert Ahl al-Sunnah to the opposition and deviation so that they are not beguiled by it and end up supporting the errant and oppressive, or, remaining silent and concealing the truth.

When speaking about the maṣāliḥ and māfāsid one must not confuse and equate between a) the likes of Shaykh ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī, Shaykh Falāḥ Ismāʿīl and b) those who make tabdīʿ of Salafīs, have violations in mighty foundations, tear apart Ahl al-Sunnah in every place, belittle shaykhs and students, looking down upon them and so on. This is because the first category had light errors, they inclined towards those who had been spoken against and they may have had doubts and misconceptions, so they were salvageable given the right approach. As for the second category, their harm is tremendous, they have violations in foundations, tear up the daʿwah, sow enmities and divisions, and fiercely attack others by waging war against them, and all of this does not emanate from genuine misconceptions and misinterpretations.^[12] The evidences against them are clear cut, yet they show stubborn rejection and arrogance and revile Ahl al-Sunnah.

Also, in another scenario, if its in relation to a place where the people have no knowledge of the issue at all, then perhaps it is best left and not introduced to those people. However, applying this principle after the truth has been made clear, and the errant and oppressive remains on his path, and the people have been touched and engulfed by his fitnah, then what other maṣāliḥ are there other than to openly uphold the truth while Ibn Hādī's followers spread lies, confusion and doubts, and waging a fierce war against the people of truth and clarity?

Negating the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid is from the way of the Ḥaddādiyyah who makea tabdīʿ of those known for the Sunnah and who may fall into what are genuine errors and slips, and not indicative of a way or methodology, and they do not consider the outcomes of their aggressive approach. This was the way followed by Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Fawzī al-Baḥrainī and their likes. They wage an unnecessary, hasty war against those who do not deserve it, whose harm is limited and restricted in scope, and who are salvageable.

And affirming the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid while applying them out of place, is from the way of Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, where the scales get turned upside down and the oppressed is considered the oppressor and vice versa, and so many restrictions are placed on disseminating criticisms and refutations of individuals with confirmed errors and violations, that they are effectively rendered null and void, of no effect and without purpose, despite the fact that the ones refuted have calamities, oppositions to foundations, have caused tremendous harm to the daʿwah, to the religion and its foundations, and to the servant and the land, and are stubborn and arrogant. So here the scales are overturned, and you see the strangest of affairs in behaviours and loyalties.

And in between there is consideration of the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid wherein truth is not undermined and sacrificed, details of errors are not ignored or concealed, rather explained and made known (after the period of patience is over), and truthful, accurate speech is maintained with precedence from scholars and shaykhs in their writings, but tabdīʿ is refrained from, and the criticised are not lied upon and imputed with things that are false.

And that is the uniform, consistent way we have been upon from the first fitnah of the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah to the last fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī.

11  Is striving to halt the errant and the oppressor to curb and prevent his evil “revenge”?
This is one of the accusations used by the followers of Ibn Hādī and his likes to undermine what is pursued by Ahl al-Sunnah of striving to put an end to evil and oppression so that it does not widen and engulf more and more people and continue unchecked, creating more divisions and weakening the daʿwah, until the situation is irreparable. These types of accusations surface in these types of tribulations and come from different categories of people. However what is in the hearts is known only to Allāh.

Ibn Hādī reviled, slandered and oppressed many people, and these people saw this not merely as something personal, but a violation of the way of Ahl al-Sunnah. Their seeking of truth and justice was not for personal revenge, but to prevent the normalisation and acceptance of this behaviour. And if some were exacting revenge for oppression, then according to the principles of the Sharīʿah, they are allowed to, as long as they do not inflict the same on the oppressor if it is in relation to that which is unlawful, in this case oppressive tabdīʿ, slander and the likes, in the process of seeking their violated right.

Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī (رحمه الله) and Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله) said, as cited earlier:

This justice must only be to the extent of the oppression and not more, as that would also be oppression. Hence, if someone was accused by Ibn Hādī of opposing scholars and rulers and being an innovator, while Ibn Hādī himself opposes the senior scholars in his rulings and methodology, it is not from oppression to point that out, so long as he is not lied upon, and he is not unjustly declared an innovator, while not deserving it.

Conclusion

Past tribulations are to be learned from, so that mistakes are not made and we have enough from the tribulations of Muḥammad bin Hādī and before him, Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, to know how to navigate these issues in corroboration of the truth and invalidation of falsehood behind the scholars or shaykhs who have made the affairs clear. Otherwise, we end up in confusion where the correct from the errant, the oppressed from the oppressor can no longer be discerned. Rather, the scales are overturned whereby the truthful are tied up and silenced and the errant are given free reign to do as they wish.

From the things that can be taken from all of the above:

01  Lofty status, scholarship and titles do not make a person exempt from being judged by the Sharīʿah and the way of Ahl al-Sunnah when he departs form right conduct. The law applies to everyone equally.

02  The swift and timely rejection of unwarranted tabdīʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah, and rejection of slander and oppression, by way of legislative obligation, otherwise, if left alone without stern rejection, chaos ensues.

03  The difference between the Wāḍiḥīn (clear ones) and the Sukūtiyyah (silent ones) during fitan, after the reality becomes clear and truth is distinct from error.

04  The truth is not known by men, but men are known by the truth, hence, it is not the scholar who is being followed, but the principles and evidences as demonstrated by any scholar(s) or shaykh(s) being followed therein, in love and veneration of truth and justice and hatred of falsehood and oppression.

05  The methodology does not change from one century to the next, or one decade to the next, or one month to the next, or one week to the next. It is suitable for all times and places. That’s why Shaykh Rabīʿ said that every student must seek the truth with its evidences and not blindly follow anyone. This is not abandoned just because “the times have changed” and “the people are not at the same level any more”.

Finally, one should note that the fitnah of Ibn Hādī did not end with Ibn Hādī, rather, it continued. That’s because Ibn Hādī’s fitnah was more of an internal dispute and struggle between like-minded people with like character’s and traits, which spilled over and harmed Ahl al-Sunnah. The phenomenon of unwarranted tabdīʿ, tearing apart Salafī communities and the daʿwah along with it is very much alive, this time with numerous other grave and serious deviations added to it.

Footnotes

1. Just as he transgressed in this arena, he also transgressed in the affairs of the world by making an accusation against someone for which he did not provide the evidence required by the Sharīʿah, so he embroiled himself and others in lengthy court proceedings. This was all out of anger that he was not listened to, which led him to lash out, angrily, from inside a house among the houses of Allāḥ.
2. Majmūʿ al-Kutub wal-Rasāʾil (9/158).
3. When Shaykh Nizār wrote this advice, he sent it to a group of shaykhs and students in Madīnah, including those who were attacked. Later Ibn Hādī said that this advice to him was written for Shaykh Nizār, not by him. Sadly, this claim has been carried on today, by those people who have continued the way of Ibn Hādī towards Salafī shaykhs and students.
4. Followed by post-tabdīʿ compilation of evidences to justify the tabdīʿ to defend Ibn Hādī and his falsehood.
5. In his article, “Barāʾah Ahl al-Sunnah mimmā Nusiba Ilayhim Dhū al-Fitnah (pp. 5-6).
6. From the tape recording, "Khuṭūrat al-Kadhib wa Āthārihī al-Sayyiʾah wa Mawqif al=Islām Minhu" (minute 56:44).
7. It is not the scholar himself who is the proof, but the evidence he provides and application of the principles of the Salafī methodology which obligate its acceptance, whether he is a senior scholar, or one less than him.
8. Mawqif al-Muʿmin min al-Fitan
9. Clarification Regarding the Ḥadīths of Fitan. See the shaykh’s Majmū Fatāwā (25/381).
10. In their article dated 18 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1439 (29 August 2018)
11. Al-Tirmidhī (no. 2167), declared ṣaḥīḥ by Shaykh al-Albānī in al-Silsilah (no. 1564).
12. And it may be the case that there are infiltrators and plants among them who have loyalties with the Ḥaddādiyyah, indicating the severity of their danger.