Reintroducing the Ḥaddādī Outcast Hisham al-Beylī Into the Ranks of the Salafis: Some Brief History from Shaykh Shihāb al-Bannā
See also: Welcoming the People of Innovation and Misguidance While Avoiding and Repelling the People of the Sunnah and Shaykh Shihāb al-Bannā’s Warning Against ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī
Shaykh Shihāb al-Din al-Bannā al-Miṣri (حفظه الله) wrote:
They were tested by al-Beylī, we ask Allāh for pardon and well-being.
Al-Beylī was an outcast from the time of the [Arab Spring] revolution [in Egypt] until the death of ʿAllāmah al-Rabīʿ (رحمه الله). Al-Rabīʿ never approved of him during his life due to his transgressions, which included disparaging ʿAllāmah al-Albānī and prohibiting invoking for mercy upon the ʿAllāmah Hasan ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā. He also defended the former president—member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muḥammad Mursī—even after his ousting, attacked Sunni scholars, and refused to accept advice.
However, after the death of al-Rabīʿ, al-Beyli reinvented himself as an admirer of ʿAllāmah al-Rabīʿ (رحمه الله), delivering lectures in his defense to win over the hearts of al-Bukhari and ʿArafāt. He even travelled to meet them to strengthen his ties with them.
Knowing that they did not approve of Raslān and other followers of Muḥammad bin Hādī, he exploited this situation, using their mutual animosity as a weapon to earn favour with their adversaries—specifically al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt. He sought to re-establish a connection to Shaykh Rabīʿ to regain fame after having been sidelined in the daʿwah arena during the Shaykh’s lifetime.
He had previously engaged in refutations against Raslān, turning these exchanges into a weapon against the Muṣaʿfiqah, including Raslān, by publicising Raslān’s errors—such as his disparagement of the Prophets and the Companions. This strategy served to strengthen the bond between al-Beyli, al-Bukhārī, and ʿArafāt.
Shaykh Shihāb placed this previously written text into an audio 23 Ṣafar 1448 (6 August 2026):
A subsequent audio from Shaykh Shihāb is more audible and has more details:
…even if Raslan was wrong in that, we do not support him. But they (al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt) favored al-Beily over Raslan because of that, despite whatever faults al-Beyli himself has. So neither is al-Beyli on the right, nor is Raslan on the right.
Arabic text:
Notes
Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) explained over two decades ago that Ḥaddādiyyah is a most dangerous innovation harming the Salafī daʿwah, and it was devised in order to weaken it through the creation of differing, division and enmity under the guise of protective jealousy for the creed and methodology and veneration of scholars.
Refer to: First Wave Ḥaddādiyyah and Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah
These Ḥaddādīs come in various types:
Those who are clear and open in their attacks against the Salafī scholars, accusing them of Irjāʾ, with a focus on affairs of takfīr in their speech and writings. Examples include ʿImād Farrāj, Badr al-Dīn al-Munāṣarah, ʿAbd Allāh al-Jarbūʿ and others. They traverse the way of the core Ḥaddādīs in this arena, Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād and ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, and they hide behind the daʿwah of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (رحمه الله).
Those who have roots in this first type, being former Quṭbīs, and who infiltrate Ahl al-Sunnah, seeking to spread their poison from within, and an example is Hishām al-Beily. They continue to revile senior scholars and accuse them of Irjāʾ.
Those from within the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah who fell into their ways of unwarranted, hasty tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and severe tajrīḥ, without following due process, and who created chaos and turmoil in the daʿwah.
Those who praise, shield, protect and accommodate Ḥaddādīs, and consequently, their treatment and behaviour towards Ahl al-Sunnah makes sense, wherein they display harshness, make rulings of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl and belittle well-known shaykhs and students, while accommodating and shielding innovators, and judging with two scales.
Hence, what we observe from ʿArafāt of polishing and rebranding the image of this Ḥaddādī from whom it is not known to date that he has repented from his slander against Imām al-Albānī nor from his insults and attacks upon ʿAllāmah Ḥasan ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā. And given that ʿArafāt praises and defends him, and speaks of his right to attack his adversaries and claims that he has no mistakes and is on the path of Salafiyyah, then it means he concurs with the misguidance from which al-Beily has not made any apparent repentance.
We ask Allāh for pardon and safety.