Rejecting Exaggeration (Ghuluww) in Figureheads and Personalities

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) said:

Speaking of the danger of exaggeration and where it leads to, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) said:^[1]

The great, senior scholars of this era began to pass away from the late 1990s, and in each decade since, we kept losing a handful of great scholars, bringing us to our current situation where those who are in their 80s or 90s, with white or grey beards, since a few years now, can be counted on just one hand. As these great scholars pass away, and their calibre is forgotten, it becomes very easy to inflate the status of others, because they are no longer seen in comparison to those greater than them, due to their absence.

Recently, even before the passing of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله), there appeared a group of people who began to use commendations to grossly exaggerate the status of certain shaykhs. They tried to confer upon them the titles and statuses given only by the great scholars of this era to those who actually deserved them, but who actually shied away from them and denied them

The situation has reached a level whereby one of them reached the heights of exaggeration (ghuluww). It is sign of the times and shows the decline in knowledge and comprehension. It is also an indication that perhaps that there are victims of past tribulations, whose effects still linger with them, and who have emerged in the ranks of the Salafīs to speak with such exaggeration.

This indicates that this apparent love of the people of knowledge is not one conditioned and restrained by the Book, the Sunnah and the Way of the Salaf, but emanates from unbridled zeal and emotions, and in some cases, there may be motivations and goals of harming the daʿwah through infiltration.

1. The Most-Knowledgeable of the Era, Shaykh al-Islām, Let Alone the Ḍhahabī of the Era, Keep to His Stirrup

On 7 November 2025, an individual tweeted the following:

There are numerous observations on the above:

There are three points to be made here, which were made in a separate article on this subject, and they are:

First, that the ones who described Shaykh Rabīʿ with this title and others were the contemporary Imāms of the Sunnah, such as Shaykh al-Albānī, Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn, Shaykh Bin Bāz, who are all greater than Shaykh Rabīʿ, so it is a weighty testimony. Second, Shaykh Rabīʿ was described as such for his tremendous efforts in clarifying the arena of criticism and appraisal of men and purifying it from the lies, fabrications and distortions of the people of misguidance. These efforts included much struggle and patience and this was recognised by these scholars. Third, this was not a title invented by Shaykh al-Albānī in order to create a permanent position that is inherited, one which requires successors.

So this claim by this individual is false and has no basis, rather, it is nothing but exaggeration and false witness, and is made by people of dubious backgrounds, likely those who were entangled in past tribulations and never really left the traits and behaviours they exhibited previously.

Its either one of two situations: a) Either you have not seen any of the senior scholars of this era with your eyes, in which case, the most knowledgeable person you have seen, personally is Shaykh al-Bukhārī, and that’s a stretch, or b) you have certainly seen the likes of Shaykh Rabīʿ, Shaykh ʿUbayd, Shaykh al-Luḥaydān and others, who were alive until recently, let alone the senior scholars who passed before them, and you are simply making false witness. Either of the two situations are not good.

What was mentioned above applies here as well.

Same as above.

The phrase “keep to his stirrup” has the broad meaning of clinging dearly to someone and following whatever he says and does, and not disobeying him, or leaving him. However, that which we know to be Salafiyyah is to cling to the Book, the Sunnah, the way of the Salaf and to the speech of any scholar (not one particular scholar as a person) who has the truth with him in a matter.

Meaning, that even this is not enough.

One of the responses to this post (as seen in the picture) states, “Exaggeration, after which there is no exaggeration” which is an accurate evaluation. This type of exaggeration has no place in Salafiyyah, and it has been rejected.

Out of fairness, this person has posted a retraction and repentance from this exaggeration, days after the original post. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing campaign by others to portray this rejection of exaggeration (ghuluww) as attacking and belittling Shaykh al-Bukhārī.

However, refuting the exaggeration of the Christians in ʿEisā (عليه السلام) is not belittling and attacking ʿEisā, and refuting the exaggeration of the Shīʿah in ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) is not belittlement of ʿAlī, and refuting the exaggeration of the Ṣūfīs and Muqallidah in some of the Imāms is not belittlement of those Imāms. Likewise, pointing out the error of those who exaggerate the status and rank of certain shaykhs, by giving them certain titles and descriptions that other scholars, who are far greater than them, shy away from and disavow, is not belittlement of anyone in the scales of those who have actually grasped Tawḥīd and Salafiyyah.

ʿAllāmah Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hadī said:^[2]

It remains unclear as to whether Shaykh al-Bukhārī is aware of these exaggerations and has repudiated them (in the same way that Shaykh Rabīʿ did), such as being made the “khalīfah” of Shaykh Rabīʿ, and the sole “kabīr” of the Salafīs, and the “Shaykh al-Islām of the era”, and the new “carrier of the flag of al-jarḥ wal-taʿdīl” after Shaykh Rabīʿ, and the reference point (marjiʿiyyah) for all Salafīs worldwide in all their affairs and so on. Keeping in mind that these things are said while there are still great scholars in our midst such as the former Muftī, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl al-Shaykh (رحمه الله), Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-ʿAbbād and Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān.

These exaggerations imply that the only fruit and legacy produced and left by sum of all the great scholars of this era, from them Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī, Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī, Shaykh al-Luḥaydān, and before them, Shaykh Bin Bāz, Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn, Shaykh al-Ghudayān and others, is just one shaykh whom the whole ummah must refer back to for its affairs, and the Salafī methodology necessitates that we reject these types of falsehoods and exaggerations, as is clear.

The truth is independent of men, men are known by way of the truth, not the other way around, and nor is truth known by mere statuses and titles, whether inflated or deserved, and this is what the great scholars of this era have taught consistently from the Book and the Sunnah.

In closing, there is no room for anyone to claim that there is any belittlement or revilement here. This type of response comes from the people of taḥazzub (partisanship) to whom attachment to statuses and personalities overrides clear principles of Salafiyyah and knowledge-based clarifications. All that has been done here is the application of the principles of Salafiyyah and the beaten track of senior scholars to verified factual realities.

2. A Trial for the Validation of Islām

Another manifestation of ghuluww is making Shaykh al-Bukhārī to be a trial (mihnah) for Islām itself, as if what has preceded was not bad enough. The reality is that because some shaykhs alerted people to some of the errors that have occurred from Shaykh al-Bukhārī, they have interpreted this as revilement, and began to make him a trial, and the basis of loyalty and disloyalty, which is an innovation in Islām.

Whereas the Salaf intended to expose the Jahmiyyah and others from Ahl al-Bidʿah who hated those scholars, Ḥammād and Aḥmad (رحمهما الله) on account of matters of creed, relating Allāh’s attributes and His speech, which entailed kufr, and hence negation of Islām, these individuals are making Shaykh al-Bukhārī to be a trial for a person’s Islām, merely because he has received criticism.

3. Tabdīʿ, Tajrīḥ, and Taḍlīl Should be Accepted Without Evidence

On 2 April 2026, one of the close and staunch follower of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadi by the name of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Albānī posted a short article in the German language on his Telegram channel in which he brought a statement from Ibn Shāhīn (d. 385H) who said that if Imām Aḥmad and Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn have the one and same view regarding a man, then their statement is accepted and no one else’s statement is returned to. Then he applied the same thing to Shaykh al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī claiming that Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd “greatly praised them and directed the people towards them after themselves.” Then he said:

This is another manifestation of ghuluww, and in its essence it is saying that when these two disparage or make tabdīʿ of someone without evidence, or accuse them of being plants, then it is the authoritative statement and no one elses speech is returned to. This is the way of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, where we must accept rulings on people without evidences to support them, why becaue the authority lies in Shaykh al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt themselves, because they have general praises for their knowledge and recommendations to participate in conferences.

In another message a question is posed to ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī by one of his followers, and he asks concerning the Imām of the Salafī Centre in Manchester who said that he had read whatever was sent to him line by line and found no evidence justifying the tabdīʿ that had been made against me (Abu ʿIyaaḍ). In it he says:

So it appears that when there is no evidence for tabdīʿ, the statement, “This shaykh only warns with evidence” becomes the evidence. It can also be said that when ʿArafāt praises anyone, he does so with evidence, because this is knowledge, as he does with the Ḥaddādī deviant, Hishām al-Beily. So this shows the ghuluww in al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl that is with these people and how their followers have been nurtured to make them and their statements to be the evidence, rather than actual evidence for their harsh rulings of tabdīʿ upon Salafīs, and praises and endorsements of innovators. Note also that in this message ʿArafāt has warned against a Salafī centre in Manchester, and declared them “Mutaʿaṣṣībah” (Partisans) simply for questioning and rejecting his tabdīʿ of Salafīs due to lack of evidence.

Related:

• Shaykh Rabīʿ Bin Hādī: Disparagement and Appraisal Are Made In Accordance With A Methodology and Principles, Not Statuses of Scholars
• 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

4. Declaring the Marjiʿ (Source, Authority)

In a post dated 31 March 2026, after criticisms had been levelled against Shaykh al-Bukhārī regarding his handling of major issues involving the plight of Muslim nations, Ṣalāḥ Kantoush writes:

As for Ahl al-Sunnah, their reference point is the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Salaf, and likewise, they refer to the scholars as a whole, without declaring one specific scholar to be the reference point. Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī declared it to be ḥizbiyyah to specify one or two shaykhs, making them the reference point for affairs of daʿwah and solving problems.

5. All Salafīs in the World, Take Your Disputes to Shaykh al-Bukhārī

In a post dated 21 July 2025, Ṣalāḥ Kantoush writes:

This is the very ḥizbiyyah that Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī warned against and which he said that Salafīs in various places had fallen in to. Here, Ṣalāḥ Kantoush invites Salafīs in the entire world towards this same ḥizbiyyah. Further, he he misuses generalised endorsements as an argument for his call to ḥizbiyyah. These endorsements do not support such a call, nor is such a call intended by these endorsements.

6. Nominating the Successor Over and Above the Senior Scholars

In another post Ṣalāḥ Kantoush claims that Shaykh al-Bukhārī was nominated the successorship (khilāfah) by the senior scholars despite their knowledge that there are other senior scholars present such as Shaykh al-Fawzān, and he explains the reason why:

This is starting to sound like there is a Pope-like position and occupation among the Salafīs, where a leading figure who is the world’s problem-solver is nominated to take on the mantle of successorship and who is to be returned to by all of the devotees across the world in the problems they face. It also sounds like what is found with the Rāfiḍah and Ṣūfiyyah of some sort of supreme figure that is the world’s problem solver who is made the reference point for the devotees. There are many repugnant things in the above statement including ghuluww, belittlement of senior scholars and sidelining them and false claims, such as knowing the callers in the world in detail, which is simply untrue.

7. Self-Aggrandisation and Calling to Taḥazzub (Partisanship)

One of the clearest examples of calling to taḥazzub (partisanship) around himself is the way one of them, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, clipped and misused the speech of Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī (رحمه الله) on the occasion of a telelink that was part of a dawrah with Maktabah Salafiyyah. The Shaykh simply mentioned that after his own participation, he nominates Shaykh al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt as participants in the dawrah. ʿArafāt al-Yemenī took this clip out of its context and posted it on his social media to make it look like the Shaykh had bequeathed him and Shaykh al-Bukharī to the Muslims and required of Maktabah Salafiyyah to refer all their affairs back to these two.

Practically speaking, when you look at the behaviour of ʿArafāt’s close associates and followers in various lands, this is what they have been promoting, and it would not be surprising in the least that this notion was fostered into their minds by ʿArafāt himself.

Sidenote: An Important Lesson From Previous Tribulations from this document

Sadly, one of the consequences of not following the correct methodology in dealing with Ahl al-Sunnah is polarisation of feelings leading to charged and emotive defences of individuals (both the wronging and the wronged] through statuses which can enter into the realm of exaggeration and exceeding bounds. This only serves to pollute the domain and add unnecessary noise to what should be purely knowledge-based investigations and discussions in pursuit of truth so that it can be followed wherever it is and whoever brings it.

Footnotes