All praise is due to Allāh ﷻ and may the Praise and Security of Allāh ﷻ be upon Muḥammad, the Seal of the Prophets and upon his family and Companions.

The supervisors of the website which goes by the name of ‘Kullu-al-Salafiyyīn2 have spread an article entitled ‘Impurities of Partisanship and Ikhwānī Remnants Connected to the Methodology of Shaykh Rabīʿ al-Madkhalī.’

In reply to their article which is filled with oppression and distortions, I say (in the words of the poet):

She accused me of a disease which she herself possessed.

For rather, they are the ones who traverse the footsteps of the Ikhwān al-Muslimīn, since their methodology wages war against the Salafī methodology just like the methodology of the Ikhwān. The Ikhwān have corrupt principles which oppose the Salafī methodology, and likewise, (ʿAlī Ḥasan) al-Ḥalabī3 and his party have corrupt principles which oppose the Salafī methodology and are more dangerous than the corrupt principles of the Ikhwān, such as the principle of a ‘broadened methodology’; a principle innovated in order to accommodate and work alongside the people of innovation, at the head of which are the Ikhwān; those whose methodology is in opposition to the methodology of the Salaf in al-Walá wa al-Bará.

It also opposes the methodology of the Salaf in disparaging the people of falsehood, innovation and clarification of their misguidance, as is the (corrupt) principle which states ‘We correct but we do not disparage’ since it opposes the methodology of the Salaf in al-Walá wa al-Bará and their methodology with regards to refuting the people of innovation and warning against them.

Similarly, the (corrupt) principle ‘It is not upon me/unnecessary’ (to accept the refutation) and ‘I am not satisfied’ (with the refutation of such and such scholar) in order to reject the truth, and this is from the filthiest of their principles.

As for the enemies of the Messengers, then they did not adhere to the truth which the Messengers came with, and they were not satisfied with it. The people of misguidance from the Rawāfiḍh, the Ṣūfīs, the Khawārij and other misguided parties do not adhere to the truth which the Salaf adhered to and were satisfied with; and at the head of them (the Salaf) were the Companions.

How many Salafī youth did this party corrupt? They corrupted them in their ʿAqīdah, Manhaj and manners. However, the Ikhwān sympathize with the people of misguidance such as the Khawārij, Rawāfiḍh, and the Ṣūfīs; inviting them into their organisations whilst (ʿAlī Ḥasan) al-Ḥalabī insults the true Salafīs who follow the methodology of the Salaf, accusing them of extremism and partisanship to falsehood, whilst he and his party wage a severe war against them.

They (al-Ḥalabī and his party) exalt those groups which are respected by the Ikhwān, and he frees them from extremism; taking lightly the affair of their differing in creed such as the doctrines of the Rawāfiḍh, the Khawārij and the Ṣūfis who sink into polytheism, negation of Allāh’s attributes, pantheism and other misguidance.

Al-Ḥalabī and his party praised the treatise which included great misguidance. It included the unification and equality of faiths, brotherhood of all religions, and loving and befriending the people of different religions. They defend it whilst insulting those who rebuke it accusing them of extremism. All of this is due to some of them following the methodology of the Ikhwān upon arrogance, so their scholars speak regarding uniting religions and freedom of religions. Rather some of them even speak regarding pantheism (the belief that Allāh ﷻ exists within His creation).

So when the people of the sunnah rebuke this misguidance, they wage war against them and debase them. All of this is in support of falsehood and its people, defending them and their misguidance.

Today, al-Ḥalabi and his party are traversing this filthy methodology. They traverse upon the path of those who aid this treatise from various misguided groups. At the head of them the Khawārij, the Rawāfiḍh, the Ikhwān and the Secularists. There are more than 500 (groups in support of this) as al-Ḥalabī mentions in recommendation and praise of it: ‘They are reliable scholars and trustworthy leaders’.

He and his party announced this on their website which is wrongfully named ‘Kullu al-Salafiyyīn’ – rather it is like Masjid Ḍirār 4, and in reality should be called ‘Kullu al-Khalafiyyīn’!

Al-Ḥalabī increased upon them by praising the treatise and complimenting those who aided it. Rather he increased in his praise for the groups of misguidance which is destruction of the religion and manners.

And from the heads of al-Ḥalabī’s party are those who defend the people of innovations and wage a severe war against the Salafīs. They lay down corrupt principles in order to fight the Salafī methodology, as well as defend the people of misguidance. An example (of a leader of this group) is Abul-Ḥasan, who defends the callers to unity of religions, brotherhood of religions, and freedom of religions based upon lies and slander. He (Abul-Ḥasan) bears witness that the Ikhwān al-Muslimūn – amongst whom are the Rawāfiḍh, Ṣūfīyyah and Christians, – to be people of the sunnah. He (Abul-Ḥasan) also bears witness that the majority of the Ummah are Salafīs, and that the Jamāʿat al-Tablīgh are people of the sunnah.

He opposes the (stance of) people of the sunnah of the world with regards to these two misguided groups. At the head of them (people of the sunnah) is al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Bāz, al-ʿAllāmah al-Albānī, al-ʿAllāmah Ṣāleḥ al-Fawzān, al-ʿAllāmah al-Luhaydān, al-ʿAllāmah al-Ghudayān and other than them from the scholars of the sunnah who regarded these two groups to be misguided.

Likewise, ʿAdnān ʿArʿūr, who glorifies Sayyid Qutb and his books, and considers that there was nobody like Sayyid Qutb who clarified the correct methodology, ascribing this statement through lies and deceit to the two Imāms, Ibn Taymīyyah and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in ‘Clarification of Tawḥīd and its Types’.

He (ʿAdnān) perceives that every group is from the Saved Sect, and he perceives Salafīyyah to be 90%, 70%, 1% relative (to the religion)! So the Rawāfiḍh and other misguided groups enter into his ‘Salafīyyah’ rather even the Jews and Christians in this perception enter into his ‘Salafīyyah’! Whilst ʿAlī al-Ḥalabī and his group perceive these two (Abul-Ḥasan and ʿAdnān ʿArʿūr) to be Salafī and fight anyone who exposes their mistakes.They ally themselves with Jamʿīyyah Iḥyá al-Turāth al-Hizbīyyah5, the Ikhwānīyyah al-Quṭbīyyah; rushing to its wealth, despite its battle against the Salafī methodology and its people; its role upon the earth is to corrupt the Salafīs and their schools, changing them to (follow) their methodology.

Some of these deviances throw al-Ḥalabī and his party far away from Salafīyyah.
Al-Ḥalabi and his party alongside these calamities claim Salafīyyah, raising themselves to its summit, (whilst) truly they are upon the way of the people of misguidance from the Rawāfiḍh and other than them, abandoning the true religion, yet accusing the people of the truth with misguidance.

Therefore, O’ true Salafī, O’ fair sensible Muslim, I will point out to you a major plot and a serious conspiracy against the correct Salafīyyah and against its truthful carriers from the scholars and students of knowledge. This major plot and great conspiracy was constituted in Britain, in the year 1420AH, not long before the death of Shaykh al-Albāni (may Allāh ﷻ have mercy upon him) and Abul-Ḥasan al-Maʿribī the fitnah-maker is its author.

He (Abul-Ḥasan) and his party carried out this policy and conspiracy, which was to tightly tie the youth to two men – whom I will mention to you shortly by name – keeping them (the youth) away from the scholars of sunnah and its callers who are known and qualified in knowledge, religion, manners and integrity. Since the aforementioned time, this party began igniting the fire of tribulations and separating the Salafī youth in the east and west, in the various lands through doubtful methods and scouts. One of them would begin his tribulation built upon waging war against Salafīyyah and the Salafīs, fighting their (correct) principles and methodologies. Then they exceeded in this fitnah by inventing methodologies and principles which leads to the removal of many from the (correct) Salafī methodology that they once traversed; thus they become of those who fight Salafīyyah and its people. Then he (the scout) is followed by another, who carries out the same as the previous but worse; and his effects on those who follow him worsen further.

The war of this party is usually built upon lies, invented fabrications and corrupt principles and they cultivated those who follow them. They have (tried to) slaughter Salafīyyah in ways which the clear people of innovations could not, even if they were to combine their efforts. The motive for the plots and tribulations of this party is due to love of wealth and leadership, whilst being subservient to those who give them wealth from the sects who oppose the Salafī methodology. They are those who prepared this party for this war and they created a filthy plan for it. The reader will find these dangerous facts throughout this (article) and he will come to know everything he sees and hears of the tribulations of this party which uses this religion to gain wealth, and fight the truth and its people through transgression and enmity; debasing them upon plotting and lies.

Abul-Ḥasan said in what he wrote of conspiracy and plots in the name of ‘Rectification Between the Salafī Youth in Britain’ this oppressive ‘rectification’ which has caused (the youth) to split and separate based upon the treaty and their unconditional allegiance to it.

The First False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan al-Maʿribī al-Miṣrī said:

Everyone should give up their personal rights for the benefits of the daʿwah, and to protect its honour, because everybody has involved themselves in matters that are not praiseworthy. All of them must keep to the previous contracts arranged by Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥalabī and Shaykh Salīm al-Hilālī, and settle their affairs upon guidance, because the believers should keep to their conditions that are permissible in the legislation.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Nobody knows what this condition is, and it is not far off to believe that this condition is one comprised of falsehood and which includes therein injustice; and every condition which is not found in Allāh’s ﷻ book is false even if it is 100 conditions.

Thereafter these people began creating tribulations and splitting the Salafīs. When they accomplished their mission they went to ‘rectify’ between those who had split (the youth) upon ‘conditions’ and Allāh ﷻ knows best if their desires and methodologies agreed (or not). For their actions are similar to the proverb;

He killed the deceased and then walked with his funeral (procession).


Wound (first) then heal.

The worst healing is the healing of Abul-Ḥasan, for verily his ‘healing’ is a deadly poison.

The Second False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

With regards to Abū Khadījah (ʿAbd al-Wāḥid) and those with him making criticism of ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq and those with him, stating that they are too lax with those who oppose the daʿwah, then it is upon ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq and those with him to be clear in the affairs of the daʿwah – even if it is the case that their previous conduct was due to the advice of scholars – then may Allāh reward them for their intentions; however, they must be clear in this.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

It appears that ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq6 and those with him are upon the methodology of Abul-Ḥasan and his false principles.

So (we ask):

Who were these scholars that advised ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq 7 and those with him to be lenient to the opposition?  Who were those advising scholars?

Were they from Abul-Ḥasan, ʿAlī Ḥasan, and their likes; or were they the masters of Abul-Ḥasan – the Ikhwān al-Muslimūn?

And that which is apparent is that after this ‘rectification’, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq and those with him have not increased in anything except tribulation upon tribulation.

And how could they not? Since the assuring signs of splitting amongst them never cease to stop? They have not ceased blowing into the bellows of tribulations up until this day of ours. The more this party drowns in tribulation and filthy principles, the more their followers increase in being distanced from the Salafī methodology and its people; increasing in separation and enmity towards the people of truth.

The Third False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

Abū Khadījah and those with him must change point no.17 of “Our Call”, since it contradicts mercy and the well known principles of Ahl al-Sunnah. It is binding upon them (Salafī Publications) and upon the other side (Masjid ibn Taymīyyah, Brixton) that they do not write anything in daʿwah except what the people of knowledge have written concerning that. If they have to write any such thing, then we advise them to write that which occurs at the end of the publication, ‘Al-Isālah’.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

1 – What is the 17th point that he obliges Abū Khadījah and those with him to change? Perhaps it is the truth and it agrees with mercy and the known principle of Ahl al-Sunnah; and what is written at the end of ‘Al-Isālah’ Magazine? It would not be far off in believing that it is falsehood. 8

2 – This obligation – for whoever remembers – opposes the (false) principle ‘It is not upon me (to accept the refutations)’ which Abul-Ḥasan and his party set down, as well as those who followed his methodology, such as ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī. This is a dangerous principle which accommodates rejection of the truth, and which (in reality) is upon them to accept and take (the correct refutations). This principle includes rejecting all rulings which the scholars of the Salafī methodology pass on to the people of desires and innovations such as the Ikhwān Al-Muslimūn and Jamāʿat al-Tablīgh.

The Fourth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

If they differ then they must all refer their affairs to the Shaykhs – ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī and Salīm ibn ʿEid al-Hilāli, since they are known to me and know best about the daʿwah in this country and the state of its people. Also most of the differences that occurred refer back to the affair of ‘Al-Siyāsa al-Sharʿīyyah’ in understanding the situation of the daʿwah and the callers, and understanding outweighing the benefit over harm.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

1 – Likewise, is this how he obliges the two oppositions to return their affairs when they differ with the ‘two Shaykhs’ ʿAlī Ḥasan Al-Ḥalabī and his colleague? Where is this Hizbī who calls to allegiance to himself, al-Ḥalabī and al-Hilālī in respect to the statement of Allāh:

فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ

ذَ‌ٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا۞

If you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.” (Q 5:95)

2 – This Hizbī obliges returning the affairs of differences back to al-Ḥalabī, and does not oblige himself or al-Ḥalabī to return back the Qurʾān, the sunnah, and the principles of the Salaf in their foundations and methodology. Rather he and his party – ʿAdnān ʿArʿūr and al-Ḥalabī invent for themselves principles which destroy the methodology of the Salaf; and from their (false) principles are; ‘It is not upon me’ and ‘I am not satisfied (with the refutations made by the scholars on some individuals)’ in order to reject the truth which (in reality) is obligatory for them to abide by and accept. So instead they hold on to falsehood which opposes the methodology of the Salaf and (what) the current scholars are upon.

3 – Does he assign problem solving in the affair of the Islamic methodology and giving precedence to benefits over harms to the likes of ʿAlī Ḥasan (Al-Ḥalabī)? The one who gives precedence to his financial benefits over the benefits of the Salafī Daʿwah as is certainly known by the people of sunnah from his (current) situation and stances.

The Fifth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

No one from either of the two sides (Salafī Publications and Masjid ibn Taymīyyah, Brixton) may go to another scholar who is ignorant of the situation here, and who does not have comprehensive awareness of it as the two aforementioned Shaykhs do – and then ask him and take his fatwá, and cause fitnah with it between the brothers. Rather, referring back to other scholars will only be for the two aforementioned Shaykhs to do. 

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Have your ears ever heard the likes of this partisanship towards al-Ḥalabi and al-Hilālī?  Have your ears ever heard the likes of these fanatic plots which hinder the Salafī youth from the major scholars of the sunnah, whilst connecting the youth to these two young fanatics (al-Ḥalabī and al-Hilālī). They themselves are fanatics towards the likes of him (i.e Abul-Ḥasan) and the likes of ʿAdnān ʿArūʿr, and those who are fanaticized towards the most dangerous financial organisations; (and have your ears ever heard the likes of someone calling the youth) to the Salafī methodology and partisanship at the same time?

If the youth return their affairs back to al-Ḥalabī will he refer them to other than Abul-Ḥasan and his likes? They are those who stand to wage war against the Salafī methodology and (stand for) defending the people of innovations and misguidance; introducing principles in order to destroy (Salafīyyah) in defence (of falsehood).

Verily Abul-Ḥasan and those behind him such as Al-Ḥalabī were wise in their plan to conquer the Salafī youth in Britain and other places, and to fanaticize them upon ignorance and false principles, breaking them away from the scholars of the sunnah; and we have yet to see a fanatical plot which exceeds the likes of this destructive plot before, the likes of which they have sold their religion with!

The Sixth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

The two Shaykhs (al-Ḥalabī & al-Hilālī) should not respond and give fatwá to one of the two sides regarding the disagreements, or matters leading to it, until the two sides have agreed upon the wording of the question; this is so that neither of the two sides will be able to take a fatwá to achieve his own (personal) goal, whilst claiming to be following the people of knowledge, and the other side doing the same.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabī ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

1 – He has not ceased connecting the youth to the ‘two Shaykhs’, and when the ‘two Shaykhs’ is used in a general context, the meaning of this is al-Ḥalabī and his colleague. He dropped the scholars without looking back; long live ‘Shaykhān’ and their Shaykh Abul-Ḥasan!

2 – When the two groups (Salafī Publications and Masjid ibn Taymīyyah) agree on the way the question is put forth, is it not possible for the other scholars, excluding al-Ḥalabī and his colleague, to answer the question upon knowledge and strong proofs?

Why did he tighten the ropes around the necks (of the youth) towards al-Ḥalabī and his colleague? Does not the intelligent one see that which is up their sleeves from evil, useless and lowly hizbī intentions? And who says that al-Ḥalabī and his colleague are from the known scholars and that their rulings are free from desires and blind fanaticism from those who are inclined or has partisanship towards them?

The Seventh False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

Administrative matters for the mosques will remain as they are, unless the two Shaykhs hold any administration to be corrupt; then these two will have the right to change it, after advising them and striving to rectify its affairs.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

1 – Abul-Ḥasan mentions that the affairs of management should remain as they are, and this ruling is not changed except by the ‘two Shaykhs’. The title ‘two Shaykhs’ has become specific to only these two (i.e al-Ḥalabī and al-Hilālī); as for the other scholars, then they have been placed in a waste basket.

So which criminal partisanship can compete with this destructive one?

2 – And is ʿAlī Ḥasan (al-Ḥalabī) and his colleague from the people of authority who places in charge, removes, replaces, and changes managements and managers; to what level have you raised these two, O’ Ḥizbī!?

The Eighth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

After this judgement has been presented and witnessed, it will not be allowed for anyone to put anything in his mosque connected with the previous disagreement, since that will start the differences again, especially if it is badly worded and so on.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

It would be said: if this is an unjust rule which was imposed for the benefit of one party over the other, would then ‘al-Imām’ Abul-Ḥasan not allow (others) to object to his ruling and to present the problem over to other scholars (apart from the ‘two Shaykhs’ and Abul-Ḥasan) so a word of truth is said?

The Ninth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

Administrative matters for the mosques will remain as they are, unless the two Shaykhs hold any administration to be corrupt, then these two will have the right to change it, after advising them and striving to rectify its affairs.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

This man wishes to tighten the grip of criminal partisanship upon the youth, who used to value the scholars and to whom they would return their affairs of differences back to. This wrongful infiltrator to Salafīyyah desires to come between them and the scholars of sunnah.

The Tenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

A distinction will be made between the private administrative affairs of each mosque and the matters of knowledge, daʿwah and manhaj. So in the administrative affairs, each area can choose whatever befits it, without going against the Sharīʿah. As for matters of knowledge and manhaj, then the two Shaykhs are to be referred back to.   

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Initially he connected the management affairs to the two referred to as the ‘two Shaykhs’, and now he differentiates between management affairs, methodology and knowledge-based affairs. Thus, (he claims) these two affairs (methodology & knowledge) are only for the ‘two Shaykhs’; as for the rest of the scholars, then they are not aware of the knowledge-based affairs and methodology.  He forbade returning to them (other scholars) especially when Abul-Ḥasan placed them in the waste basket.

This ensures that when Abul-Ḥasan’s fitnah and corrupt principles became apparent – (which he used to hide) – and was announced as a war against the Salafī methodology, the scholars advised him to retract from this tribulation and these futile principles. However, he refused advice such that he and his party dropped those advising scholars, and behind them (i.e. following their footsteps in this false principle and dropping the scholars that advise them) are al-Ḥalabī and his party.

This explains to us Abul-Ḥasan’s intent behind ‘knowledge-based and methodology issues’ which he used to hide, when he gave this ‘clarification’ and ‘rectification’ between the youth in Britain.

From these ‘affairs of methodology’ and his (false) principles are:

– The broad methodology – which accommodates Salafīyyah and the whole Ummah, – meaning even the Rawāfiḍh.

– He then widened its borders until he began defending those who call to the unification of religions, brotherhood between religions, and freedom of religions.

– Through following this principle, ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī began aiding the call in unifying the religions, the brotherhood of religions and the equality of religions, and other than this which the Omani letter included (a letter written by a leader from Oman which included statements of kufr which ʿAlī Ḥasan has defended). He described the letter to be ‘an explanation of Islam’ and an explanation of the modesty of Islam.

– He describes those who defended this letter as reliable scholars, and from them are the heads of the Rawāfiḍh, Khawārij, Ṣūfīyyah and Secularists; while describing those who uphold and defend the Salafī methodology as extremists.

The Eleventh False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

A Salafī teaching in mosques of those who oppose us is something that refers back to the understanding of ‘Al Siyāsa al-Sharʿīyyah’ and taking into account matters of benefits and harm with regards to the present situation and future results, and this is referred back to the two Shaykhs alone. Either they order something from that, otherwise it will be, and it is binding upon everyone that they submit to what the two of them say, and not to open the door to all and sundry.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Who are those ‘opposers’? He has failed to revealed this, and it would not be wrong to believe his intent here are the Ikhwān al-Muflisīn and Jamāʿat al-Tablīgh; and it is believable that he permits learning in the masājid of the Rawāfiḍh.
1 – Who is the Salafī that would learn or teach with those innovators except a sick mutamayi 10 person who is upon the way of Abul-Ḥasan and his party. This is because it is not possible that the innovators would allow a Salafī to clarify the belief of the Salaf and their methodology, and to refute the misguidance of innovators in a masjid belonging to innovators. As for someone who is upon the way of Abul-Ḥasan and his party, those who illuminate the people of innovation, defend them and wage war against the Salafīyyīn, accusing them of extremism; then their brothers from the people of desires will accommodate them with open arms.

2 – Abul-Fitan thinks that teaching in the masjid of his brothers (of misguidance) is an issue of Islamic politics and giving priority to benefits.  His Islamic politics are politically based on a vastly broadened methodology, which accommodates the whole Ummah except the Salafīyyīn; it cannot accommodate them (Salafīs) because according to his vast methodology they are extremists.

3. Abul-Ḥasan re-iterates that these affairs (of knowledge and methodology) and politics should be referred only to the (great) ‘two Shaykhs’, this is because they are upon his methodology; as for the other scholars, they are not people who should be referred back to because they do not know the Islamic politics according to the manhaj of Abul-Fitan. They do not know how to weigh the benefits and harms (pros and cons). Does not the intelligent one realise this plot against the Salafī manhaj and its people, the connection and reckless ḥizbīyyah which manifested after this oppressive paper from this destructive party ignited tribulations, separation and the shredding between Salafīs in various lands.

The Twelfth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

Yearly daʿwah conferences and other than them in Britain will be unified. The Shaykhs who will take part in them will be chosen after consulting the two Shaykhs. Work and organisation and so on will be carried out by them all, with love and mercy. Unless the two Shaykhs hold some view in that regard, since they know best about whether it will be beneficial for so and so to be allowed to take part in the affair or not.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

What is the intent behind uniting conferences (in Britian)?  Is there anything preventing Abul-Ḥasan and his party from the participation of the Ikhwān al-Muflisūn, Jamāʿat al-Tablīgh and other than them in these united conferences? Especially when he regards them to be from the people of sunnah whilst he wages war against the people of sunnah because of them?

1 – He says ‘the Shaykhs who will take part in them will be chosen after consulting the two Shaykhs, will the ‘two Shaykhs’ elect someone who opposes Abul-Ḥasan’s methodology, especially when they plotted this overnight?

2 – He says: ‘the Shaykhs who will take part in them will be chosen after consulting the two Shaykhs. Work and organisation and so on will be carried out by them all, with love and mercy.This affection and mercy is for those who are upon the methodology of Abul-Ḥasan and his groups, as well as those who defend it.

3 – He says: ‘Unless the two Shaykhs hold some view in that regard, since they know best about whether it will be beneficial for so and so to be allowed to take part in the affair or not.According to Abul-Fitan everything should be referred back to these two ‘imāms’ those for whom there is no comparison to them in knowing the benefits and harms (in daʿwah), and they have the right to permit the participation of someone and the rejecting of someone. Especially if the rejected ones are Salafīs, and those who are pleased are Ḥasanīyyūn, Ḥalabīyyūn, Ikhwāni or Tablīghī.

4 – The Salafīs everywhere witnessed how the works of Abul-Ḥasan and al-Ḥalabī split the Salafīs in every part of the world, and this is due to their intense ‘acquaintance’ with benefits and harms, which nobody benefitted from except the enemies of the Salafī daʿwah!

The Thirteenth False Principle:

‘Al-ʿAllāmah’ Abul-Fitan says:

Labelling people, particularly those who are working with us upon this daʿwah, is not open to all of the people. Rather, it is for the two Shaykhs, and the Ahl al-Sunnah here (in Britian) should just carry their sayings in this. Whoever sees – and is from the people suitable for this – something different to the sayings of the two Shaykhs, then he must consult with them. He should not cause trouble between the Salafī Muslims. This is so that the matter of disagreement is terminated and likewise that which will lead to evil amongst the Salafīs in a land whose condition is not hidden from anyone. Particularly since I do not find anyone who is fitting to carry out Jar`ḥ and Taʿdīl in it.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

So categorising people is an affair Allāh has chosen the ‘two Shaykhs’ for, those who were made scholar by al-Imām Abul-Ḥasan, with the Salafīs humbling themselves to their wishes!?

They cannot move a finger except with the permission of the ‘two Shaykhs’; they cannot rebuke falsehood nor forbid evil except with their permission, even if they (followers of Abul-Ḥasan’s party) were separated from them (the ‘two Shaykhs’) by seas and rivers, and thousands of miles away.

As for the other scholars then this ‘Imām’ has pushed them away, and they have no right of getting involved in the affairs of these ‘two great Shaykhs.’ They (the) other scholars are not allowed to pass a ruling on anyone, even if he was from the worst of people in manners, belief and methodology. This is because that (scholar’s interfering) would be a violation of the rule of the ‘two Shaykhs’ of whom there is no comparison to them in their leadership, their knowledge of politics, their extensive ability of categorising and their precision of the affairs of al-Jar`ḥ wa al-Taʿdīl, upon a methodology other than the people of sunnah; since the people of sunnah have become ‘inappropriate’ for al-Jar`ḥ wa al-Taʿdīl.

The Fourteenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

As for any (monetary) assistance given for the daʿwah, without any conflicting condition upon the callers, then it will not be allowed for anyone to speak ill of those who accept it, unless it is connected to some harm; judging this harm will be left to the two Shaykhs, not everyone.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

It is said: this is from the main points that Abul-Ḥasan, al-Ḥalabī and their parties are known to eat off of the daʿwah in the name of ‘al-Salafīyyah’, and it has reached us that they oblige those who are deceived by them to give their wealth, and it will not be allowed for them (ones who give their wealth) except to submit themselves to the greatness of those who eat off the daʿwah (Abul-Ḥasan and al-Ḥalabī).

The reality of the statement of al-Imām Ibn Mubārak has appeared from them:

“O’ you who made for himself knowledge to be an Eagle hunting with it the wealth of the poor!”

Verily they have made their deceiving knowledge based upon the greed of an Eagle hunting the wealth of the weak and even the strong. This is something clear to the people as the midday Sun. And he (Abul-Ḥasan) said by exception: unless it is connected to some harm, judging this harm will be left to the two Shaykhs, not everyone.”

As for the ‘Shaykhān’ they do not see any harm in collecting money, so anything which is given to them (the ‘two Shaykhs’) and Abul-Ḥasan is considered sweet fresh water, no matter what it is, no matter what the methodology and goals of the person giving (the wealth), even if it be to destroy Salafīyyah and to tear apart its people.

Look at his statement: left to the two Shaykhs, not everyone.” It is as if there isn’t anybody left on the face of the earth knowledgeable about the Ḥalāl and Ḥarām and the harms and benefits except his two Shaykhs (al-Ḥalabī and al-Hilālī).  So which splitting and despicable ḥizbīyyah is equal to this one? Which judgment upon the people is equal to this one which the Muslims and non-Muslims all reject?

The Fifteenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

This daʿwah is not for the desire to attain leadership or prominence in front of the people. So whoever intends to gain many followers, or to gain increase through lowly desires, then Allāh will uncover him, and He, the Mighty and Majestic says:

وَٱعۡلَمُوٓاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَعۡلَمُ مَا فِىٓ أَنفُسِكُمۡ فَٱحۡذَرُوهُ‌ۚ ۞

“And know, all of you, that Allāh knows what is in your souls – so beware of him.” [Q 2: 235]

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Verily Allāh ﷻ has exposed you, for He has shown the people that you are chasing leadership. He has exposed your affair of chasing wealth and your despicable greed, which even the lowest of Allāh’s ﷻ creation, the most greedy pursuers of ḥarām wealth would not stoop as low as you. This wealth which the people of good give to the poor, needy and those afflicted with trials, you (Abul-Ḥasan) collect it to establish partisanship which you recruit in order to wage war against the Salafī methodology and its people in the name of al-Islām and daʿwah to Allāh. You are worse than those who seek to sabotage the daʿwah to Allāh.

Look at the criminality of this man towards Allāh ﷻ and how he uses this verse as evidence, and he is the first to know that he is a liar in using it as a proof.

Is not this ḥizbīyyah and gathering masses of the youth (specifically) around the ‘two Shaykhs’ and tying them tightly to them, from the clearest proofs of you chasing leadership? Whilst leaving the honest and honourable scholars of Sunnah, those (scholars) who do not tie the Salafī youth to the love of leadership; rather they tie the youth to love for the sake of Allāh ﷻ and mutual respect.

The Sixteenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

Whoever takes the advice of the two Shaykhs regarding deserting a certain person, or openly rebuking him, then others may not criticise them for this. Rather, they should rebuke him for his action, as long as it proceeded in accordance with previous points.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

As for the two ‘Imāms’ and the ‘two Shaykhs’, it is obligatory to obey them, and to take their advice, even if this advice is upon falsehood. If they command you to boycott an individual – even if he is oppressed – it is obligatory upon those who glorify the the two Shaykhs to boycott this individual in obedience of the two ‘Imāms’ (al-Ḥalabī and al-Hilālī)!

Woe to the one who defends him (the boycotted one) even if you are sure he is the oppressed one.

The Seventeenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

“Abu ʿUbaydah returned the waqf of the mosque which he took after Maḥfūẓ left the administration. It is not allowed to change the waqf, since Allāh says:

فَمَنۢ بَدَّلَهُ ۥ بَعۡدَمَا سَمِعَهُ ۥ فَإِنَّمَآ إِثۡمُهُ ۥ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ يُبَدِّلُونَهُ ۥۤ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ۬ ۞

 “Then whoever changes the bequest after hearing it, the sin shall be on those who make the change. Truly, Allaah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” [Q 2: 181]

Then if there are some particular/private monetary matters, then their judgement in particular is for the two Shaykhs.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

– I do not know the story of Abī ʿUbaydah, nor do I know him, and I am unable to completely dismiss the possibility that he could be oppressed.

– Why are the ‘two Shaykhs’ specified in the ruling of monetary issues and not issues concerning the methodology and belief? Perhaps they would favour themselves to take the money in order to end the dispute.

The Eighteenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

The Salafī Daʿwah in Britain is a call for everyone. It may not be said, “such and such mosque is the only one for the Salafī, and whoever does not come to it is not a Salafī”, whoever says that is splitting the ranks. Such a fatwá can only come from the two Shaykhs. 

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

What is known is that most Salafī Masājid in Britain are rented houses. They rent it from the sweat of their foreheads, so that it can be used for the Salafī Daʿwah. So when a person of tribulation appears carrying the ideology of the Ikhwān or the ideology of Abul-Ḥasan and his likes – in order that he may conduct a lesson filled with tribulations in order to split the Salafīs and to confuse their religion, then they (the Salafī Masājid) have the right to prevent him. As for Abul-Ḥasan, the one with the broadened methodology, then he considers protecting the Salafī Daʿwah and its people from the wolves (innovators) as splitting and extremism, and the strangest of things is that this man firmly ties the Salafīs, their mosques and their managements to the ‘two Shaykhs’ and this monopolisation exceeds that of oppressive governments and exposed parties.

The Nineteenth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan said:

No one from the opponents (of the Salafī Daʿwah) may be invited to give lectures or the likes in the Salafī mosque. If something of this occurs without someone inviting him, or without their being pleased with his presence, then the affair of harm and benefit is to be considered. In the case of any disagreements, then the matter will be referred back to the Shaykhs, and their advice will be acted upon. Likewise, the Salafīs will not distribute articles by the opponents, and the previous details apply.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

According him the (real) opposers – such as Jamāʿat al-Tablīgh or the Ikhwān al-Muslimūn – are Ahl al-Sunnah.

1 – It is known that the Ikhwān are a mixture of the al-Rawāfiḍh, al-Khawārij and al-Ṣūfīyyah, rather Christians as well! And Jamāʿat al-Tablīgh are a mixture of al-Ṣūfīyyah, al-Qubūrīs and other than them.

2 – They pledge upon four Ṣūfī principles which include Shirk, the belief that Allāh ﷻ is everywhere, pantheism, and every utensil spills out its fill! What urged Abul-Ḥasan to mention in this paragraph the existence of true Salafīs whose Daʿwah Salafīyyah does not permit them to listen to lectures or lessons of these deviant sects? Rather, the Salafī methodology itself prohibits sitting with the people of desires and inclining towards them, let alone calling them to give lectures and lessons! That which is apparent is that he has people making their Salafīyyah apparent, lurking around for him in Britain within the ranks of the Salafīs, upon the path of Abul-Ḥasan. Nothing prevents this undercover softened category from calling the people of desires to give lectures and lessons in the masājid of the people of Sunnah except in order to split them and confuse their religion. Rather, to conquer (the minds) of some of them, and the methodology of Abul-Ḥasan and his party accommodates all of this. And al-Ḥalabī and the other ‘Shaykh’ hold that which Abul-Ḥasan traverses and believes to be good and beautiful; and Abul-Ḥasan ensures that those he describes as ‘the two Shaykhs’ traverse his methodology, referring people to them and that it is upon the Salafīs to act in accordance with their advice whatever it may be, with no conditions or restrictions.

3. Throwing ash into the eyes (of the people) Abul-Fitan says: ‘Likewise, the Salafīs will not distribute articles by the opponents, and the previous details apply’, (i.e. if any dispute takes place it should be returned back to the ‘two Shaykhs’ to make the decision). The content (of this affair) is to return it back to the ‘two Shaykhs’ instead of other (scholars). So if they (ʿAlī Ḥasan and al-Hilālī) allow the distribution of deviant publications, then it is upon the Salafīs to submit themselves to the command of the ‘two Shaykhs’ no matter what is written in these publications, and no matter how much misguidance is in them.

As for the rest of the scholars, then he embalmed them, and he and his opposing companions have relieved themselves from them (the other scholars).

It is (as the lines of poetry indicate),

The atmosphere is vacant for you, so do as you will.

The Twentieth False Principle:

The expert, Abul-Fitan said:

Referring to the ijtihād of a scholar who is aware of the situation and of the Sharʿī proof, and leaving aside the ijtihād of people who are not like that – in favour of the ijtihād of the scholar – this is not called blameworthy taqlīd, and will not be hidden from the people of this affair in that regard.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

So, the only diligent scholars who are acquainted with current affairs and the Islamic evidences in these times are ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī and his colleague (Salīm al-Hilālī). These two are the ones deserving of ijtihād and their followers are not blind-followers; even though Abul-Ḥasan tightly fastened collars around their necks (made it compulsory to obey the ‘two Shaykhs’). As for other than al-Ḥalabī and his colleagues from the (other) scholars; then they are not people fit for ijtihād, and the one who takes their verdict, even if they are established with Islamic evidences, then he is indulging and falling into dispraised blind-following!

And beware O’ Salafīs of exceeding (limits and participating) in these acts of partisanship, playing with minds and softening the Salafī methodology and its people. Because you are traversing a tight methodology (a correct methodology that does not accommodate people of innovations). Abul-Ḥasan and his party are leaving (correct) principles for (corrupt) principles. At the head of those (corrupt principles) is this broadened methodology, which accommodates the whole Ummah except the Salafī methodology and its people.

The Twenty-First False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan says:

It is not allowed to accuse the intentions of our brothers and none of them should be accused of being spies, or of other than that, except after referring back to the two Shaykhs, then our daʿwah is, and all praise is for Allāh, such that it does not contain – in its totality – anything that causes us to enter upon such dangerous matters. Because our call is such that its outer aspect is the same as its inner aspect, and all praise is for Allāh. Both its outer aspect and its inner aspect are upon the Book and the Sunnah with the understanding of the Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Abul-Ḥasan sees that it is not allowed to suspect the intentions of his brothers, and no accusations of spying should occur except after returning back to the ‘two Shaykhs’. So if then the ‘Shaykhān’ permit accusing the Salafīs or some of them of spying or anything like this – which could possibly be worse than the accusation of being a spy – it is upon both groups to accept this great fatwá from the ‘two Shaykhs’, and this submission to the ‘two Shaykhs’ is from the methodology of the Salaf and is not considered blind following nor despicable partisanship, all of which are from virtues Abul-Ḥasan (has given to the people). And it is possible that some of those upon his methodology are spies but the ‘Shaykhān’ do not permit accusing them; and submission to them (Shaykhān) is compulsory.

Then he begins praising the people of his daʿwah as you see (saying) ‘its outer aspect is the same as its inner aspect.’ What is known is that his daʿwah has within it all kinds of tribulations and that its interior goes against its apparent. His actions and stances bears witness to this; and from them (his tribulations in daʿwah) are his actions and rulings in this ‘declaration’ of his.

The Twenty-Second False Principle:

Abul-Fitan says:

Calling the people to understand politics and culture has to be in accordance with the principles of the Ahl al-Sunnah, not upon the understanding of the people of fitnah. So whoever speaks in this regard should make his intention clear or leave it, in order to repel harm. Because repelling harm takes precedence over seeking to bring about good.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

1 – We have an Islamic methodology which is understood from the Book and Sunnah upon the understanding and implementation of the pious predecessors. Modern methodologies came from the enemies of al-Islām to corrupt the belief and character of the Muslims. They have in Britain and the west corrupt methodologies which are based upon disbelief and oppression in the name of democracy, freedom and equality which the people of misguidance engaged in from the Ikhwān al-Muflisīn (the ‘Bankrupt Brotherhood’), al-Rawāfiḍh and others from their likes; and people claiming Salafīyyah also engaged in it, delving in parliaments and voting. Abul-Fitan never clarified which (type) of politics and culture he sees people should be called to. From what is apparent is that Abul-Fitan intends the latter kind of politics and culture (entering parliaments etc.) and the proof for this is his current situation, which is politics based upon western democracy. That which follows it from constitutions, legislations, voting and rotating leadership. Al-Islam is free from this kind of politics let alone innovating principles for it, and every utensil will spill out its fill!

If Abul-Ḥasan was Salafī he would have called the Salafī youth to give importance to (learn) the Salafī methodology and its beliefs, rulings and manners. He would not order them with the distractions of despicable partisanship and blind-following which blinds the insight. He would not call them to indulge in his scheming politics which is coated with ‘principles’. He has not placed (correct) principles for those weak ones;  and you cannot give what you do not possess, and the evidence for this is that he indulges in the midst of western politics without following (the correct) principles.

2 – His (Abul-Ḥasan’s) statement: ‘so whoever talks regarding this (politics and culture) then he either has to clarify his intent or leave it, warding off any evil’. It is said: and when he (the person who speaks about these affairs) clarifies his intent which are corrupt; then what is the solution? Nothing (is the solution) O’ Abul-Ḥasan! Your methodology is based upon giving precedence to corruption and spreading tribulations and destroying benefits, and from it (this atrocious act) which you carried out for the people of falsehood and this false partisanship.

The Twenty-Third False Principle:

Abul-Fitan says:

Each side must pardon the other side and free itself from the backbiting that it has polluted itself with, in attacks upon their dīn and daʿwah, or from any abuse, or supplication made against them and so on. This before there comes a Day when there will remain no dirham nor dīnār, rather all that will remain are good and bad deeds (to be taken from).

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Nobody knows about the pardoning of these two sides; did it actually happen or not? The only thing which came as a result from this false ‘peace-treaty’ built upon scheming and humiliating partisanship was splitting which has no limit. This is an inevitable result of the scheming of Abul-Ḥasan and whoever calls to their partisanship. Whosoever has the least amount of awareness will realise what is hidden in this ‘peace-treaty’ and its conditions, and that which it entails from obscenity, great plots and that which followed after.

The Twenty-Fourth False Principle:

Abul-Fitan says:

People who are such that they are hot-headed, or who obstinately persist upon their opinions, from either of the two sides, or those of them who love to be conspicuous – and this is hardly to be found, inshā’Allāh – then it is upon them to repent to Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, otherwise the end that awaits them is not praiseworthy, except for those whom Allāh has mercy upon. Rather, what is binding is that the intention of each of us should be concerned with their own souls, and should not seek to go to great lengths to gain praise of themselves or seek excuses of their own selves.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

It is (as the poet said):

“O’ man who teaches others; why do you not direct this teaching to yourself?

You prescribe the cure for the sick and young so they are cured, whilst you yourself are sick!

Start with yourself by forbidding its straying; when you forbid yourself then you are wise,

Then it will be accepted (from you) if you admonish, and your speech will be followed and

your teaching will benefit.

Do not forbid the people (from doing something) whilst you do the same;

Shame on you if you do, for it is great.”

Who loves to be known like you? For this reason, you dared to go against the scholars and the Salafī methodology; and you will see the disastrous consequences which you warned those who are below you by levels, against. Except if you repent to Allāh with a sincere repentance.

The Twenty-Fifth False Principle:

Abul-Ḥasan says:

I remind all of them of the covenant that they took upon themselves to give precedence to the benefits of the daʿwah over themselves and that they seek to repair the cracks and bring unity.

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

Who is the Imām who took the covenant from them? Was it Abul-Ḥasan or ‘Imām’ ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī?

Then it should be said: Allāh knows best about this daʿwah which everyone took upon themselves to precede its benefits over their own. What is known about Abul-Ḥasan and his party here and there is that it gives precedence to their benefits over the benefits of the true Salafī Daʿwah. They have not sufficed with just that, rather they have laid principles, waging war against this Salafī Daʿwah and its people, and until this day they carry on sloping down and down, worse than the time this plan was created up until this day.

The Twenty-Sixth False Principle:

Abul-Fitan says:

Whoever opposes what is contained in this judgement, then he is opposing what I hold to be of that which will draw the brothers closer together in Britian and unite them. So in such a case, his affair will be referred back to the two Shaykhs to decide what should be done about him according to the Sharīʿah. Even if that should result in a fatwá being given that he is boycotted and that none of the Salafīs of this country should turn to him. This is because our daʿwah is not connected to individuals, and our daʿwah can proceed without so and so, and so and so just as they say, ‘the final cure is cauterisation.’ So if the two Shaykhs give a verdict in this regard with anything from that, connected to the people of knowledge of daʿwah here, they should be aided and assisted in this because their fatwá is to be acted upon from the angle of acting upon the report of a just person, as is known from Ahl al-Sunnah. This is the way in which we will be able to block the doors of fitnah, because we do not possess any prison for one who opposes, and they do not take any income or wages from us, such that we could cut it off from them, or withdraw from them, Allāh said:

فَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ مَا ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُمۡ ۞

So fear Allāh and keep your duty to him as far as you are able.” [Q 64: 16]

Commentary (Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī):

1 – This ruling was based on whims and partisanship, which aims to cause evil and tribulations. It was not based upon the Book of Allāh ﷻ and the Sunnah of His Messenger g and the methodology of the pious predecessors. The Salafī would know that this ruling is amongst those rulings which are alien to Allāh’s ﷻ rulings, so with this reality how does this bring one closer to Allāh e?

2 – Thereafter I state: I do not know the status that these ‘Shaykhān’ have reached. Have they reached the level of the Great Caliphate so as to be given these rights which have no comparison? Maybe at the least Abul-Ḥasan sees that they (the ‘two Shaykhs’) have absolute authority over the Salafī Daʿwah in the world; that is if he does not believe them to have the Caliphate authority.

Look at his statement,So in such a case, then his affair will be referred back to the two Shaykhs to decide what should be done about him according to the Sharīʿah, i.e. regarding the one who opposes Abul-Ḥasan’s ruling, or the affair of such a person is left to the ‘two Imāms of the Muslims’ (al-Ḥalabī and al-Hilālī).

He also said: ‘This may mean issuing a fatwá for all the Salafīs in this country (Britain) ordering them to boycott this person and not to pay any attention to him’. Do these rulings come from a modest scholar who knows his value?
When the terms of his rulings reached this serious limit he adjusted and said deceptively ‘because our daʿwah isn’t tied to the people’. So it should be asked of him: why all of these restrictions and ropes that you have tightened and shackled to these youth, if your daʿwah is not attached to people, O’ deceiver! So which attachment is worse than you attaching the people to individuals from the beginning of this document up until its end?  You believe that it will not proceed (the daʿwah) except through so and so. Woe to (your) exposed mistakes!

Look at how he continues to change his words. One moment he is flying in the sky, and the next he is falling to the earth. You see him threatening the one who opposes his ruling by issuing a fatwá for all the Salafīs in the country from high authorities (the two Shaykhs), ordering them to boycott and not to pay any attention to him (the opposing one). He says, ‘the final cure is cauterisation.’ Then you see him trying to humble his scheme by stating ‘because their fatwá is to be acted upon from the angle of acting upon the report of a just person’. He states this despite the fact that they wage war against (accepting) the information received by one trustworthy individual and trustworthy individuals. They make principles in rejection of it, and they cling to difference of opinion and they are appalled by it; rejecting the detailed refutations which are based upon strong proofs and evidences.

3 – This ʿAlī al-Ḥalabī requires a consensus for the word ghuthāʾ (scum) to be an insult, this filthy word which Abul-Ḥasan labelled the honoured Companions – may Allāh ﷻ be pleased with them – he said: ‘it is not an insult, it is not an insult’, and ʿAlī Ḥasan came confirming the stance of his friend (Abul-Ḥasan), defending him sinfully in this heinous insult, making a requirement that it needs a consensus (to claim it is an insult) – [see ‘Al-Isālah’ magazine, 45th Ed., pg. 22].  Which manipulation, stubbornness and arrogance does this party insist upon?

4 – ʿAlī (al-Ḥalabī) and his group believe that it is not necessary to accept the tabdīʿ (declaration of someone being an innovator) of any innovator except through consensus of his tabdīʿ. He said: ‘So the stance of the general masses of students is that when the people of knowledge have a consensus on the tabdīʿ of someone, it is not allowed for them to oppose this’. So according to his statement, if 99% of scholars make tabdīʿ on someone, it cannot be accepted until the consensus is 100%.

This principle is false. It rejects accepting information of one trustworthy person and the scholarly rulings upon the people of falsehood and innovation. It also opposes the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the pious predecessors.

Here you see al-Ḥalabī ambushing, standing in the way of the scholars of the Sunnah, and opposing them in their rulings upon the people of desires in what they deserve (by way of refutations). He sees that his opposition to them (in not making tabdīʿ) nullifies the rulings of those scholars, because his opposition will pierce the consensus; even if those scholars have compelling evidences to prove the correctness of their rulings.

He invents these false principles to combat the truth and its people. Do you find principles like the ones of this party (anywhere else); especially those of al-Ḥalabī and his objectives which he has in setting these principles?

Rather al-Ḥalabī alleged that there is no proof for Jar`ḥ wa al-Taʿdīl in the Book nor in the Sunnah; he admitted this to me and other than me, then he said mistakenly and arrogantly: ‘It was a verbal error’, so I said to him: ‘No, rather it is a fundamental error.’ This great calamity to him and others, is like a fly that flies past his nose.

We say the same about his party as those who despise making sincere repentance and turning to Allāh ﷻ and the truth. He (al-Ḥalabī) never announced a clear repentance from his involvement in this misguidance. Thereafter I say to Abul-Ḥasan: If you are from the People of Sunnah – God forbid – then why do you drop the scholars of Sunnah and their fatāwá. You cut the ties between them and the youth; those whom you gathered in a place tighter than a glass bottle’s neck, fastening them to your shackles and restrictions (principles) that you set which no one preceded you in.

In conclusion, I say to every sincere Salafī: Have you seen partisanship like this one which has excelled the partisanship of the Ṣūfīs, the Rawāfiḍh and the partisanship of those authoritarian political parties? Have you ever witnessed, O’ Muslim, the likes of this partisanship and fastening of shackles to the necks of innocent Salafīs?

Approximately sixteen tight restrictions he shackled to the Salafīs, along with those whom Abul-Ḥasan refers to as the ‘two Shaykhs’. Those (the two Shaykhs) who live in Jordan with their authority crossing over countries; past oceans all the way to Britain. This is what we have noticed and perhaps their authority extends to the rest of the continents; perhaps them being named the ‘two Shaykhs’ is out of humbleness, as in the saying ‘Act humble until you establish yourself’;  and he publicises this, labelling them as ‘the two Imāms (leaders) of the Ummah’ this is not leadership in knowledge; rather it is something else which is taken from their scheming, methods and aspirations that initiates the dropping of the scholars of the Salafī Manhaj from the time this restriction-filled plot was written in the year 1420AH (1999).

Their continuous actions confirm this (their treachery) from that date up until now. The have put the Salafīs and Salafīyyah into ongoing tribulations which no one does except the most severe enemies of this methodology from the people of political ambitions; those people who run towards false scheming leadership upon the methodology of the Machiavellian principle of ‘the goals justify the means’.

For verily by Allāh! They have defaced Salafīyyah and the Salafīs in ways which even the most quarrelsome and spiteful of enemies could not. In many tapes and magazines filled with deceit, lies, distortions and defacing. Even in forums, persevering in these treacherous acts with neither fatigue nor boredom, whilst clad in the garments of Salafīyyah, so their destructive plots and deeds succeed under this guise, just like the political deceit of (ʿAbdullāh) ibn Sabaʾ (the founder of the Shīʿah sect) and his group.

We ask Allāh that He makes their scheming against themselves, and that He awakens the heedless and negligent Salafīs from what is being plotted against the Salafī methodology and its people; from plots and political partisan schemes which traverse the modern political paths of the people of scheming and the spite.

May Allāh’s ﷻ praise and salutations be upon Muḥammad and His family and Companions.

Rabīʿ ibn Hādī ibn ʿUmayr al-Madkhalī

4/7/1432AH (Corresponding to 6th June 2011)


Copy of the original agreement.


1 Taken from مكيدة خطيرة ومكر كُبَّار

[TN] –  This is the forum podium which is administrated by ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī

3 [TN] – He is ʿAlī Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī from the land of al-Shām, Jordan. Listen here to the statements of the of the Salafī Scholars warning against this man and his methodology – From them are the major scholars Shaykh Aḥmed al-Najmī, Shaykh Muḥammed al-Banná, Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-Ghudayān, Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān (all major scholars) and the list continues, yet you see Masjid ibn Taymīyyah in Brixton continue to defend and promote him on their website/

[TN] – The Shaykh referred this website as Masjid Ḍirār, which was built by the hypocrites at the time of the Prophet ﷺ. Allāh said about it, “And those who have built a mosque in order to commit mischief and spread infidelity and to cause dissension among Muslims, and as an ambush for him who is already against Allāh and His Messenger from before. And they will surely swear that we desired only good. And Allāh bears witness that they are certainly liars.” [Q 9: 107]

[TN] – Shaykh Aḥmed al-Najmī was asked about seeking knowledge from a person who does not see ʿAdnān ʿArʿūr, al-Maghrāwī, Abul-Ḥasan and Jamʿīyyah Iḥyá al-Turāth to be innovators, he replied; ‘In reality, those who do not hold these people to be innovators are included amongst them because those people are innovators.’ The Ruling on the One Who Does Not Make Tabdīʿ on Iḥyá al-Turāth – Shaykh Aḥmed al-Najmī

[TN] – He is ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Baker, the chairman of Masjid ibn Taymīyah, Brixton. Currently residing in Saudi Arabia operating an English Learning School.

[TN]Shaykh Muḥammed al-Madkhalī said concerning Brixton and these people: “(I fear) that their ending will be like that of Brixton (Masjid ibn Taymīyyah), who ended up with Abul-Ḥasan, ʿAlī Ḥasan (al-Ḥalabī) and those people, with ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Baker, and whoever was with him from the likes of Abū Hājir and those people. They came here (in Madīnah) many times, and I advised them. And it became clear after that they are untruthful people.” Click here to listen to the full audio.

[TN] Point 17: Refuting every person in opposition (to the sunnah) whether he is a Muslim or other than that, whatever level his slip or mistake might be; regardless of whether his opposition to the truth occurred deliberately or as an error, upon whatever methodologies he may ascribe to, alongside whatever is possible from the use of evidence, clarification and struggling against him; exposing him and revealing his true condition through the foundations of Islām. This is in order that this noble religion retains its purity and innocence and that the people can drink from it, certain of its sweet taste. – ‘The ʿAqīdah and Methodology of the Great Imāms of the Past, Mountains of Knowledge.’ Chapter: ‘Our Daʿwah’, Pg.260 (Salafī Publications).

10 Someone who waters down the manhaj of Salafīyyah to accommodate the people of innovation.