Shaykh Nizār bin Hāshim: Doubts and Their Answers

Shaykh Nizār bin Hāshim is one of numerous shaykhs who has exposed and refuted the errors, lies and mischief of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and those behind him and with him in affairs connected to tbe foundations of the Sunnah such as rulership, rebellion, sedition, jihād, and treatment of Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Bidʿah. Being unable to respond to the evidences presented that they indeed fell into oppositions (such as complicity with the aḥzāb in matters of rebellion, sedition, and opposition to senior scholars in matters of war and bloodshed and treachery in dealings with them), they have played games of evasion and tried to find ways to discredit Shaykh Nizār from the point of view of scholarly credibility, and this is typical behaviour which is to be expected from dishonest and bankrupt people.

Given that Shaykh Nizār stood out of veneration for the Sunnah and the sanctity of life, and the unity and security of a Muslim nation, then he is worthy of support and defence, for when the likes of ʿArafāt do not shy from praising and shielding Hadḍādī innovators like Hishām al-Beylī, then Salafīs should not shy away from speaking a word of truth and justice in relation to Salafī shaykhs who are subject to defamation and oppression, merely for venerating the foundations of the Sunnah in relation to conflicts affecting their nations, and in which the truth is evidently on their side.

This way followed by ʿArafāt and his zealots is the same way traversed by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Miṣrī al-Maʾribī and Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, which is to trawl throught the cassettes of the one who exposed your deviation to look for faults and to twist and take words and sentences out of context. There are some relevant quotes from Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī regarding this treacherous conduct, which al-Maʾribī took towards him after he had been thoroughly exposed, and indicates the most lowly of characters.

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

He (رحمه الله) also said:^[2]

This is the very state and condition of ʿArafāt and his zealots, and this is why this fitnah has combined various elements of previous fitan all in one package aimed at destroying and replacing the daʿwah of truth and clarity with a daʿwah comprising exaggeration (ghuluww), oppression (ḍhulm) and corruption not disconnected from worldly goals and ambitions.

We must understand the meta-thinking of the cunning fox that is taking place here and state it clearly:

Below are some of the issues that have been raised and some related resources, while noting that this crime is not isolated but a repeat pattern of declaring Salafīs astray and defaming them on trumped up charges based on lies, distortions and fabrications. See the example in relation to myself and also Dānā ʿAbd Allāh.

1. Ways of Scholars in Deriving Allāh’s Names (From the Texts) : Post
2. Clarification of Some Doubts in the Daʿwah Arena Relating to Affirmation of Allāh’s Names and Attributes: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
3. Thunderbolts and Thunderclaps: Exposing the Ignorance of Arafat Al-Muhammadi—the Spiteful Strayer. Article. An excellent exposition by ʿAbd Allāh al-Khayrī. A summary in English.
4. A follow up on the above, exposing more of ʿArafāt’s ignorance.
5. And another follow up with benefits from Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah on the subject.
6. A Comment from Shaykh ʿAlī al-Hudhayfī on Those Who Wish to Criticise Someone’s Creed: Post (20/08/2026). Basically, people with corrupt ʿaqīdah regarding rulers and unity of Muslims and their nations (i.e. ʿArafāt and company) are not in a position to be criticising others, they should rectify their own creed first.
7. A Comment from Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī on Allāh’s Names and the Name “al-Shāfī”: Post (20/08/2026). The error of choosing one Name of Allāh about whose affirmation there is a difference to impute misguidance to someone in this subject area.
8. A Comment on the Claim of Ṣalāḥ Kantoush: Post (20/08/2026).

Summary: ʿArafāt tried to defame and belittle Shaykh Nizār but got exposed himself for his ignorance in this subject matter. He should fix his own blunders first before throwing stones from his glass house. He did this just to conceal his complicity in sedition, treachery to Shaykh Rabīʿ in matters of bloodshed, and allying with Ḥaddādīs over Salafīs.

Summary: The words of Shaykh Rabīʿ to al-Maʾribī: “This represents the utmost heights of lowliness, wickedness and religious and moral depravity.” He did this just to conceal his complicity in sedition, treachery to Shaykh Rabīʿ in matters of bloodshed, and allying with Ḥaddādīs over Salafīs.

This is not really an issue to attack someone for and to declare him ignorant and misguided.^[3]

1. Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī on the Muslim Qurʾān scholars (mufassirūn) who held the earth to be flat. Document. A refutation of Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, original source.
2. Al-Qaḥtānī on the Astrologer Astronomers and the Spherical Earth: Document.
3. Shaykh Muqbil on the Shape of the Earth: Document.
4. The Mufassir al-Qurṭubī on the Shape of the Earth: Document.
5. Maslamah al-Qurṭubī (d. 353H) on the Heavens and the Earth: Document.
6. Ibn ʿAṭiyyah al-Andalūsī (d. 541H) on the Earth: Sūrah Raʿd, Sūrah Nūḥ, Sūrah al-Ghāshiyah
7. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Mubārakfūrī on the Claimed Consensus Regarding the Sphericity of the Earth: Image. The author of “Tuḥfah al-Ahwazī bi Sharḥ Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī” explains that the claimed consensus regarding the sphericity of the earth is among the philosophers and astronomers, not the scholars of religion from the Salaf and Khalaf. English Translation.
8. The consensus cited by Ibn Taymiyyah from Ibn al-Munādī. Image. The consensus cited by Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597H) and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) about the sphericity of the earth, cited from Ibn al-Munādī (d. 337H) is actually the consensus of the astronomers, and not a Sharīʿyy consensus. Ibn al-Munādī’s speech in this regard is actually taken from Ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī (d. 247H), an astronomer and engineer, found in Kitāb al-Aʿlāq al-Nafīsah of Aḥmad bin Rustah (d. 300H), a Persian explorer and geographer.
9. This is Ibn Taymiyyah, So Where Are You O ʿArafāt: Post (23/08/2026). The shape of the earth, and fighting jihād against the Tartars and Houthīs, a great observation. ʿArafāt and his group were complicit in rebellion against legitimate authority, yet when the legitimate authority makes a summons (istinfār) for them to fight against the Houthīs, they do not respond and show little or no support. What is the point of citing Ibn Taymiyyah on the shape of the earth, if you are unable to follow his example in fighting Allāh’s enemies behind the ruler?
10. The Cunning Deceiver and the Ḥaddādī Methodology. Post (24/08/2026) ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadi clipped Shaykh Nizār’s speech while he was commenting on the Nūniyyah of al-Qaḥtānī who states that the spherical earth is the saying of astrologers and astronomers and that the Qurʾān made clear that it is a flat plane. Failing to provide this context, he proceeded to attack Shaykh Nizār on this issue with the unfounded claim of a consensus among Muslim scholars regarding the sphericity of the earth.
11. The Appreciation by Men of Understanding of the Exoneration of Shaykh al-Islām from the Spherical Earth Model, Which Contradicts Truth and Correctness: Book (25/08/2026). A response to the ignorance of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his intrusion into what he does not know or understand.
12. Exposing and Clarifying the Deceit, Obfuscation, Lying, and Ignorance of ʿArafāt al-Yamāni: Book (30/08/2026). A follow up to the previous work, exposing ʿArafāt's compound ignorance and weakness in comprehension even further.
13. Quotes from Ibn Taymiyyah Regarding the Earth: Article (28/09/26). A folow up to prior articles, with a few quotes from Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the matter.

Summary: The saying of Shaykh Rabīʿ:

`Arafāt is refuting Shaykh Nizār on the issue of the shape of the earth after he has been exposed as a liar, and after his complicity in rebellion and sedition has been established. Likewise, his conspiring to lie to Shaykh Rabīʿ to extract a fatwā in matters of war and bloodshed, and also his praise and alliance with Ḥaddādī innovators who attack senior Salafīs. He met all of this with silence because it was established against him with concrete evidences and then decided to raise the issue of the shape of the earth! A bankrupt individual. May Allah guide him and his zealots to their senses.

1. An Important Note Regarding the “Ṭayyibāt” System of Dr. al-ʿAwaḍī (رحمه الله) and Other Important Affairs: Article (23/08/2026). English translation (with comments).

1. ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, We ask Allāh to Cure Him: Post (27/08/2026).
2. Shaykh Nizār bin Hāshim: Question and Answer on the Name, “al-Rafīq” for Allāh the Exalted: Post (27/08/2026). English translation (includes Arabic text).

1. Removing the Veil from the Ignorance of ʿArafāt the Liar: Post (28/08/2026). English translation.

1. Verification and Affirmation of the Authorship of “al-Waqafāt” by Our Shaykh, Nizār: Document (02/09/2026) by Walīd bin Muḥammad al-Amīn al-Ḥāj.
2. Shaykh Bilāl al-Sālimī’s remarks on the above refutation: Post (02/09/2026). The Shaykh praised this refutation and said it should be added to the three-part series he wrote in January 2026 proving that ʿArafāt is a liar.

1. Response to Shaykh al-Bukhārī’s Answer to a Question on Criticising Rulers of Other States: Posts (16/09/2026). Response to a six minute audio in which Shaykh al-Bukharī finally breaks his silence and speaks about Shayk Nizār and the matter of Sudan.
2. Highlighting the contradictions between Shaykh al-Bukhārī, ʿArafāt and their followers. ʿArafāt says it is permitted to speak if authorised by one’s ruler to do so, which is the basis for Shaykh Nizār’s speech. ʿArafāt himself has speech regarding Turkey and Erdogan (see here, here and here). Same with Muḥammad bin Ghālib al-ʿUmarī and Munīr al-Saʿdī. The difference between them is that Shaykh Nizār has the most justification to speak about an aggressor against his nation, whereas the others have little or no grounds, based on their own fatwās. Shaykh ʿAlī poses valid questions: If speaking about rulers of other nations is prohibited, then what is your view on ʿArafāt’s fatwā? And what about your fatwā allowing people to fight their own governments? Meaning, what is worse, someone speaking about a hostile foreign government or giving a fatwā allowing people to fight their own government?
3. Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayfī: “I asked Shaykh Rabīʿ—may Allāh have mercy on him, forgive him, and elevate his rank—about speaking regarding the ruler of another country. He said to me: ‘My view is that there is no fixed rule regarding this. Rather, it depends on weighing the benefits and harms.’ I had posed this question to our Shaykh—may Allāh have mercy on him—prior to speaking about Erdoğan, prompted by the Muslim Brotherhood’s excessive praise of him and their disparagement of other Muslim rulers.”
4. Previously, Shaykh al-Bukhārī spoke very harshly about the leader of Turkey, mentioning Zionist alliance and support and actions amounting to disbelief. It is a legitimate question, are their two scales? More commentary here with an English translation.
5. Observations and Unveilings on What Was Said by Dr. al-Bukhārī: Part 1: The Issue of the Ruler That Transgresses Against a Muslim Nation: Article (27/09/2026)

Footnotes