All praise is due to Allāh, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allāh.

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا﴾

[ الأحزاب: 70]

“O you who believe! Keep your duty to Allah and fear Him, and speak (always) the truth.”

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ﴾

[ المائدة: 8]

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.”

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ وَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ﴾

[ آل عمران: 102]

“O you who believe! Fear Allah (by doing all that He has ordered and by abstaining from all that He has forbidden) as He should be feared. [Obey Him, be thankful to Him, and remember Him always], and die not except in a state of Islam (as Muslims) with complete submission to Allah.”

Know—may Allāh guide you to the truth—that those who inflict al-ḍarar al-murakkab (compound harm) upon the Salafī Daʿwah are a trial for the people of Īmān. They have built a system based on destroying the reputations of the duʿāt, sowing hatred within Ahl al-Sunnah, exploiting a single private conversation to damage the reputations of their brothers, and deceiving the people of knowledge with false reports.
It is an obligation upon the people of truth to expose them. We do not do this out of personal desire, but to repel their ongoing harm, safeguard the honor of the callers, and ensure the believers are not stung twice from the same hole (lā yuldaghu al-muʾmin min juḥrin wāḥidin marratayn). When the harm is compound—corrupting hearts with hatred and the religion with lies—clarifying their state is a necessity to protect the Ummah from their deception and keep the path of the Salaf clear of the distortions of the deceivers and the deceived.

The Obligation of Clarification

In the past section (Part 1): I shared with you, as someone associated with the Salafi da’wah in the Maldives, my firsthand knowledge surrounding how the information was carried from the Maldives to Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī. I exposed the true character of the person sending this filtered information to the scholars in Madīnah, bringing forth baseline evidence. I provided the exact dates, documentation of whom I met, and the concrete confessions from my own meetings and investigation into this entire affair. It looked strictly at what these individuals practically did—from their secret recordings to their interference in private marital affairs.

May Allāh bless you, the brothers who read that first section told me immediately that after reading it, they saw the exact same type of character in Taqweem and Musa. Personally, I did not know their inner characters yet, but those who know them well and have experienced them directly confirmed this reality to me. Anyone who reflects upon the evidence will come to a direct realization that we are dealing with a specific type of mindset from a group of individuals who share these very same behavioral characteristics.

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

«الأَرْوَاحُ جُنُودٌ مُجَنَّدَةٌ، فَمَا تَعَارَفَ مِنْهَا ائْتَلَفَ، وَمَا تَنَاكَرَ مِنْهَا اخْتَلَفَ»

“Souls are like recruited troops. Those that recognize one another come together, and those that reject one another differ.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3336 and Sahih Muslim 2638)

This Hadith explains why these individuals incline toward one another; their beliefs, manners, and characters are fundamentally aligned. To be completely frank, Abu Muʿādh Taqweem shares this exact same character with Abu Anas (who could be the worst of them all), and Musa —a mindset of rigid opinionatedness, operating upon the arrogant premise that “my opinion is the only correct opinion, and everyone else’s opinion is completely wrong,” coupled with a distinct harshness. This entire network revolves around a hardcore, partisan attachment to Shaykh Dr. al-Bukhārī and ʿArafāt, completely blinding themselves to the fact that there are still many other Salafi Shaykhs whose speech and guidelines they completely ignore when it opposes their goals. And to be more frank, ʿArafāt shares the exact same type of character with Abu Anas, Abu Muʿādh Taqweem, and Musa in not acting upon what they know; they all share these specific traits.

The primary characteristic I observe in this group is that they possess hizbiyyah and strong ta’assub (blind fanaticism) toward whatever Shaykh al-Bukhārī says. Even though what the Shaykh said is based entirely on the one-sided information they passed to him, they suffer from a severe lack of intelligence in realizing this error. Furthermore, they suffer from a deficiency in comprehending precise, classical Uṣūl (like the critical distinction between Sharʿ Muʾawwal and Sharʿ Munazzal). They lack understanding in some aspects of the Shari’ah texts and demonstrate a severe deficiency in understanding complex affairs. They share a rigid, narrow-mindedness and an inability to digest valid, evidence-based academic differences. In the case of ʿadwā (contagion), Taqweem holds the exact same mindset, treating the issue as though there is an ijmāʿ (consensus) on his specific view. If there is an opinion they hold, they strongly enforce it with severe harshness, as though anyone who differs lacks knowledge. This is an opinionated nature that seeks to forcefully compel the community upon their personal outlooks. They look down on other people, thinking that because they are students of Madīnah, they are more deserving of leadership and possess more knowledge, constantly trying to show that they are the ones leading the Daʿwah. They display immense harshness in dealing with Ahl al-Sunnah, and they constantly try to wield a kind of authority and monopoly over the Daʿwah due to their personal connections with some of the Shaykhs.

As Allāh the Exalted says:

﴿۞ وَمَا أُبَرِّئُ نَفْسِي ۚ إِنَّ النَّفْسَ لَأَمَّارَةٌ بِالسُّوءِ إِلَّا مَا رَحِمَ رَبِّي ۚ إِنَّ رَبِّي غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ﴾

[ يوسف: 53]

“And I free not myself (from the blame). Verily, the (human) self is indeed inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His Mercy (upon whom He wills). Verily, my Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

It is highly plausible that this group of people shares a calculated objective within their inner selves, driven by deep-seated diseases of the heart, unresolved grievances, and fixed ideas that have clung to their souls. It is possible that their actions are fueled by a convergence of corrupt motives, including certain ambitions and objectives that override the interests of the Da’wah; persistent grievances and deep-seated biases held against their brothers; false principles and a rigid commitment to a specific ideology and thought of theirs; organized partisanship and the amassing of followers around specific personalities rather than the Truth; latent inner enmity and ḥasad (envy) towards some of Ahl al-Sunnah; and worldly interests and other such transient affairs. Because they already harbored these distorted inner states, they were eager to seize upon the speech of Shaykh al-Bukhārī. They utilized his words as a strategic weapon to validate their own hidden agendas and to strengthen their pursuit of these subjective, harmful goals. In essence, it is possible that they bit into his speech and amplified it precisely because it aligned with the sicknesses, maneuvering, and partisan goals they had already cultivated within themselves.

In this current section (Part 2): We shift from the specific issue to a foundational attack on opponents’ baseline methodology. While Part 1 looked at what they did, Part 2 diagnoses why they do it by analyzing their shared psychological and methodological traits. Both parts remain tightly unified in unmasking the exact same network of actors—Musa Richardson, Taqweem Aslam, Abu Anas, and Adiyyu—explicitly showing that the root of this entire trial is not independent investigation, but rather a coordinated circle of secrecy translating private notes, carrying tales (Namīmah), and filtering information.

We begin breaking down the systematic angles dismantling Musa’s speech. This first angle exposes a clear historical recurrence. By mapping this current fitnah directly onto the Madeenah.com fitnah from 20 years ago, we show the reader that this is not a new issue. We demonstrate that it is the exact same group of Madīnah students using the exact same structural blueprint of information-poisoning on the exact same scholar. This changes the reader’s perspective from “this is a dispute about COVID” to “this is a long-standing partisan habit of gatekeeping selective information.“ We will take their favorite shield—the claim that “the scholar has mysterious insight (Firāsah)” in his declaring someone a plant and equating a Salafi with ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd unjustly—and shatter it using the scales of justice, forcing them into an inescapable logical trap regarding how they treated the Muḥammad bin Hādī trial. Furthermore, when cornered on their lack of evidence, Musa and those with them respond that their chosen scholar has already spoken and because he is Allāh’s witness on earth who gives testimony for Allāh, they portray it as if his judgment (in this case, of saying Abu ʿIyad is a plant and ʿArafāt’s tabdīʿ) has divine sanction and cannot be interfered with.

They rely completely on this unverified, mysterious Firāsah as their sole justification for declaring a well-known caller to the Sunnah to be a “plant” (Dasīsah)—an infiltrator who allegedly wants to destroy the unity of the Muslims, divide the Ummah, and completely tear down the Daʿwah. To make such a dangerous accusation against a person’s inner intentions and plot a total destruction of their reputation without a single shred of manifest, legislative proof is the very essence of oppression (Ẓulm).

1st Angle: The History of Tale-Carrying, the Lack of Ground Knowledge with Dr. Bukhari and the Falsehood of Mere “Insight”

Musa stated:

“Shaykh Abdullah Buhari told me five years ago, he’s a plant. Warn the people against him. Subhaanallah. And he was absolutely right. But the reality is, some scholars have insight and they see things.”

“Our scholars who were most aware of the affairs of the West, those that would be returned to and relied upon, the likes of Shaykh Abdullah al-Bukhari, Shaykh Arafat al-Muhammadi, and others, are aware of these situations.”

However, it must be noted that Shaykh Abdullāh bin ʿAbd al-Raḥīm bin Ḥasan bin Maḥmūdʿ — and ʿArafāt Ḥasan Ṣāliḥ Jaʿfar — did not possess detailed ground knowledge of what was truly taking place in the West, particularly in the UK and USA, nor the reality of how certain individuals were behaving within the daʿwah. Rather, much of what reached them was being fed through certain venomous, backstabbing, and foolish individuals who lacked proper wisdom, and deep understanding in many affairs of the religion — individuals such as Musa Richardson from the USA, Taqweem Aslam from the UK, Abu Anas Maldives, (along with Adiyyu and certain Madīnah University students) from the Maldives and elsewhere, and their circle of secrecy.

When one examines this network of actors, they are found to possess remarkably identical characteristics, bound together by a shared deficiency in comprehending precise aspects of the religion, a mutual narrow-mindedness that renders them utterly unable to digest legitimate, evidence-based academic differences, and a highly opinionated, rigid behavior that seeks to forcefully compel the masses upon their own localized outlooks. It was this specific faction that attempted to revive attacks and fitan similar to those connected to the Madeenah.com fitnah group in previous years. Even in that earlier fitnah, Shaykh al-Bukhārī became involved based on the framed portrayals brought to him, and Shaykh Rabeeʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd corrected and clarified the true reality of the affair to him.

Allāh the Exalted strictly warned against accepting such reports without evidence:

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ﴾

[ الحجرات: 6]

“O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.”

And the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) warned regarding the tale-carriers who fuel these fitan:

لَا يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ نَمَّامٌ

“The tale-carrier (nammām) will not enter Paradise.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

As has been correctly noted regarding these recurring tactics: “A similar incident occurred many years ago, I believe nearly twenty years ago. At that time, Sheikh Al-Bukhari and Sheikh Khalid Ar-Raddadi (may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him) listened to some malevolent individuals who carried accusations and fabrications against their brothers in Maktabah Salafiyyah (Salafi Publications) in Britain. They leaned towards believing them and began supporting them at the expense of Maktabah Salafiyyah (Salafi Publications) and its people.”

The historical parallel here is absolutely staggering, and the reader must pay close attention to this reality: this is the exact same group of Madīnah students deploying the exact same text-manipulation and information-poisoning blueprint on the exact same scholar. Only the specific names of the localized actors have changed; the underlying methodology remains identical.

Shaykh Abu Iyad himself documented this in “The Fitnah of the Madeenah Students (2004)”:

“THIS WAS A FITNAH led by Ṭāhir Wyatt and numerous other students in Madīnah from around 2004 onwards… efforts were made to curb and restrain Maktabah Salafiyyah and its daʿwah, with claims of harshness and exaggeration. The two shaykhs they involved (Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī and Shaykh Khālid al-Raddādī) tried to get Maktabah Salafiyyah to sign bayāns to this effect, and pressured them to do so, without allowing them any form of redress against the claims that were made.”

Read: https://abuiyaad.com/w/madeenah-com-students

Just as a partisan band of Madeenah.com students utilized highly filtered, one-sided data twenty years ago, we see the modern actors—Musa, Abu Anas, Taqweem and others—recommencing the exact same cycle. They weaponize selective information to control the narrative around the scholar, conceal the objective counter-evidence, and extract a completely unjust public verdict based on an engineered reality.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Shaykh Bukhari later became susceptible once again to accepting and believing similar accusations presented by individuals such as Musa, Abu Anas and Taqweem. These individuals were among the main culprits behind much of the fitnah surrounding Salafi Publications duʿāt and Abu ʿIyad and the issues connected to Shaykh al-Bukhārī and Dr. ʿArafāt, especially dating back to the 2020 COVID/vaccine fitnah and the turmoil that followed from it.

As Abu Hakeem noted on November 9, 2021:

The issue, number one, is that there are a few people networking behind the scenes who are trying to taint the daʿwah with this issue of COVID-19. And in particular, they’re aiming at Abu Iyad. There is a party (ḥizb) now that is trying to aim, particularly, Abu Iyad, but I believe, apparently, that the intent is to try and bring down Makthaba, the daʿwah and the Mashaykh (of Makthaba Salafiyyah) around this COVID issue.

You know, (they are saying that) (Abu Iyad) Amjad is warning against (Muslim) leaders and warning against the government and this kind of stupidity, because he’s saying that they claim that the government is unaware, or that the ʿulamāʾ are unaware, of what’s going on with the COVID agenda and so on, and that this necessitates speaking ill (ṭaʿn) of the ʿulamāʾ and so on. Kulluhu kadhib. It’s all lies. But, you know, this is what we know of these people for the past 30 years. Any single opening that they’re able to find, they’ll try and utilise it against the (Salafi) daʿwah (of Salafi Publications).

Abu Hakeem rightly identified that these claims were baseless, characterizing this as a behavioral pattern he had observed from such individuals for over thirty years: whenever they find an opening, they exploit it to wage war against the daʿwah. This confirms that the current actions of Musa, Taqweem, and their circle are not a departure from their past—they are a direct, persistent continuation of a decades-long partisan campaign.

History repeats itself, yet the architects of this fitnah ignore the lessons of the past. Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī eventually returned to the position held by Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd regarding the Madeenah.com fitnah affair once the true reality of those fabrications was made clear to him. Yet, Musa Richardson now attempts to rewrite this history, framing the current situation by saying:

Back in the days we used to say, whoever wants Ṭāhir Wyatt, go with Ṭāhir Wyatt. Whoever wants Shaykh Rabee, the scholars of Islam, go with them. Now is the time of separation because they don’t coincide anymore. They don’t need to be in the voting booths. They don’t need to be with politicians.

This framing is profoundly dishonest. Musa conveniently omits the fact that Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī was initially deceived by the same types of portrayals—and the same type of students—twenty years ago.

By framing it as a simple ‘separation of truth from falsehood,’ Musa hides the uncomfortable reality: if he is using Shaykh al-Bukhārī’s current words as a ‘proof,’ he must also account for the fact that this same scholar was once led astray by these same methods of information-poisoning in the past. If Musa’s logic were consistent, he would have to admit that Shaykh al-Bukhārī’s previous involvement with Ṭāhir Wyatt was a mistake—a mistake he corrected only after the truth was laid bare by the senior scholars. Does Musa acknowledge this, or does he prefer to keep the reader ignorant of the fact that the ‘insight’ he champions today was proven fallible by the very scholars he claims to follow?

While Shaykh al-Bukhārī’s return to the truth during the Madeenah.com fitnah demonstrates his praiseworthy adherence to the major scholars at that time, it simultaneously proves a devastating methodological point against Musa: the Shaykh’s judgments are heavily reliant on the integrity of the information fed to him by the students around him. If the information pipeline is corrupted by tale-carriers, the resulting verdict will naturally be corrupted, regardless of the Shaykh’s seniority. Furthermore, in light of this recurring tactic by deceptive students, it would have been far safer and more in line with the established Manhaj if these matters had been presented to and discussed with the senior scholars—such as Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd—to verify the reality of the situation before anyone spoke independently. Instead, isolated verdicts were issued based on the poisoned reports of individuals like Musa and Taqweem.

Furthermore, regarding Shaykh al-Bukhārī’s alleged statement five years ago, “He’s a plant. Warn the people against him,” we ask for the evidences that led him to this insight.

Musa then attempts to justify Shaykh al-Bukhārī’s alleged warning (“He’s a plant. Warn the people against him”) by relying not on legislative proofs, but on mysterious intuition. Musa states:

“Shaykh Abdullah Buhari told me five years ago, he’s a plant. Warn the people against him. Subhaanallah. And he was absolutely right. But the reality is, some scholars have insight and they see things.“

We must be absolutely clear: elevating “insight” (Firāsah) to the level of unquestionable proof is not just a minor methodological slip—it strikes directly at the core of ʿAqīdah and Tawḥīd. By treating a scholar’s unverified intuition as binding (Wājib) and treating it as though it were knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), they are walking the exact path of the original Ṣūfiyyah. This deviation is particularly severe because the claim in question was factually false five years ago when it was first uttered, and its falsehood is even more glaringly obvious today.

There is a mountain of manifest evidence completely dismantling this so-called “insight,” firmly established through the writings of numerous Shaykhs, the testimonies of reliable witnesses, and Shaykh Abu ʿIyad’s own documented defenses. To deliberately ignore this concrete reality and instead cling to an unverified feeling is to dangerously mirror the Ṣūfiyyah in their claims of knowing the unseen. (I may dedicate a separate article entirely to this dangerous theological deviation, in shāʾ Allāh.)

Ahl al-Sunnah certainly acknowledge that a Sunni scholar can possess intuition or foresight (Baṣīrah) born of experience. However, in the Sharīʿah, a scholar’s personal intuition is merely a trigger to investigate—it is never a substitute for manifest legislative proof (Bayyinah). To execute a public warning, tear down a caller’s honor, and command the masses to boycott him based on nothing but an internal feeling—without ever bringing forth physical evidence to the people—is a devastating methodological error.

Let us be precise: we are not accusing any scholar of the Sunnah or their students of literally being Ṣūfīs (the original innovators). However, treating a Shaykh’s unverified “insight” as an absolute, binding proof dangerously mimics the Ṣūfī reliance on Kashf (spiritual unveiling) over apparent texts and evidence. This is mimicking the behavioral characteristics of the Ṣūfiyyah in how they interact with their Shuyūkh. That is the way of the Ṣūfīs; it is absolutely not how Ahl al-Sunnah and the Salafiyyūn behave with their scholars.

To this dangerous elevation of intuition over evidence,we apply the scales of justice and the Minhāj: If mere “insight” (Firāsah / Baṣīrah) devoid of objective, presented proof is sufficient to publicly declare an innocent Muslim an infiltrator, then we ask Musa: Why did you and your network reject the identical ‘insight’ of Muḥammad bin Hādī? When Muḥammad bin Hādī claimed to possess deep ‘insight’ regarding the hidden network and realities of ʿArafāt, you demanded meticulously documented proofs. You correctly declared that in the religion of Allāh, Jarḥ must be Mufassar (objectively explained and substantiated) for a well-known caller of Sunnah to be declared an innovator and a plant who wants to destroy the da’wah. Why then do you change your weights and measures now? Why must ʿArafāt’s deviation be objectively explained and substantiated, while Abu ʿIyad’s honor can be slaughtered based on a private conversation due to some ‘insight’ from five years ago? This is the very essence of playing with the foundations of the religion based on blind, partisan allegiances.

Furthermore, we must ask Musa: where was this alleged ‘insight’ when your network of tale-carriers completely hid the fact that Shaykh Abu ʿIyad had already submitted over 290 pages of detailed, technical scientific research to the Gulf health authorities a year prior? He perfectly completed this under “Giving Advice to the Authorities Through Legislated Routes,” fulfilling the exact methodology that Shaykh al-Bukhārī later declared he wanted from him. Did you inform the Shaykh that none of his writings ever called to speak against the rulers, nor did they advocate for going against their policies, disobeying them, or opposing the established Manhaj of al-Samʿ wa al-Ṭāʿah (hearing and obeying)? In absolute fact, all of his writings were written in strict defense of these very foundational principles! Why did the tale-bearers maliciously hide this vital reality from Shaykh al-Bukhārī? They purposefully omitted his defense of the rulers and his strict compliance with policies in order to paint a false picture of rebellion, purely to manipulate the scholar into issuing an unmerited warning. If ‘insight’ bypasses independent verification, how did it fail to detect that the entire narrative presented was a deceitful, calculated omission? This demonstrates that a person of knowledge passes a verdict based strictly upon the specific information presented to him, and if that data is intentionally manipulated by the selective gatekeeping of the troublemakers (Fattānūn) who control the channel of transmission, the resulting judgment will naturally reflect the flaws of the narrative they engineered.

«الحكم على الشيء فرع عن تصوره»

“The judgment upon a matter is a branch of how it is conceptualized”

The Position of the Major Scholars Regarding Verdicts Built Upon “Insight” Alone

In the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah, specific rulings of tabdīʿ (declaring someone an innovator), takfīr (excommunication), or tafsīq (declaring someone a sinner) against known people of the Sunnah can never be established upon Firāsah (insight) or unverified intuitions. Rather, people are judged exclusively by the manifest evidence of what they have actually said, written, or practiced.

1. The Foundation: Judging by Outward Actions, Not Hidden Secrets

From ʿAbdullāh bin ʿUtbah bin Masʿūd, he said: I heard ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb, may Allah be pleased with him [raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu], saying:

“Verily [inna], people used to be held to account [yuʾkhadhūna] by the revelation [al-waḥy] during the era of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him [ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam]. And indeed, the revelation has ceased [inqaṭaʿa]. So we only hold you to account now by what becomes apparent [ẓahara] to us from your deeds [aʿmālikum].

Thus, whoever makes good [khayran] apparent to us, we grant him safety [ammannāhu] and we bring him close [qarrabnāhu], and we have nothing to do with his inner secrets [sarīratihi]; Allah will call him to account [yuḥāsibuhu] regarding his inner secrets.

And whoever makes evil [sūʾan] apparent to us, we do not grant him safety [lam naʾmanhu] nor do we believe him [lam nuṣaddiqhu], even if he says: ‘Verily, my inner secret [sarīratī] is good [ḥasanah].'”

Recorded by al-Bukhari.

2. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah on “Unveiling” (Kashf) and Inspiration (Ilhām)

Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy upon him, warned against relying on spiritual unveilings over the Book and the Sunnah:

“As for special (highly pious) people, they might know what will happen to certain groups through what Allah has shown them. But this is not something that everyone else is required to believe. This is because many of those who are thought to have this special insight are actually just guessing, and guessing is completely useless against the real truth.

And the people of mukāshafāt [spiritual unveilings] and mukhāṭabāt [inner spiritual addresses] are right sometimes, and they make mistakes at other times; just like the scholars of reasoning and deduction make mistakes when they try to figure out a ruling (ijtihād). Because of this, it is required for all of them to hold tight to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. They must weigh their spiritual feelings (mawājīd), their visions (mushāhadāt), their opinions(ārā’), and their logical thoughts (maʿqūlāt) against the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger; they must not just suffice [rely] on those [inner feelings or thoughts] alone.

For indeed, the absolute master of the al-muḥaddathīn [the intuitively guided], the al-mukhāṭabīn [the spiritually addressed], and the al-mulhamīn [the divinely inspired] in this Ummah is `Umar bin Al-Khattab. Yet, situations would occur where he had an intuition, and the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, would correct him. Or, his close companion [Abu Bakr] as-Siddiq—who followed the Prophet ﷺ and learned from him, and who is even more perfect than the inspired person whose heart receives guidance from his Lord—would correct him.

For this reason, it is obligatory upon all of creation to follow the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and to obey him in all matters, both hidden and visible. If there were anyone who received something from Allah that did not need to be checked against the Book and the Sunnah, that person would not need the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, for a part of his religion.

(Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 11/65)

He further clarified that inspiration is a personal evidence when it aligns with the Shari’ah, but cannot override outward proofs:

“The heart that is filled with piety [Taqwā], if it gives preference [rajjaḥa] simply by its own view [ra’y], then it is an Islamic, legislated preference [tarjīḥ sharʿī].

He said: So whenever it occurs to him, and a deep inner realization [mā baṭana maʿahu] settles in his heart that this matter or this speech is more pleasing to Allah and His Messenger, this becomes a preference based on an Islamic evidence [dalīl sharʿī]. And those who completely denied that divine inspiration [ilhām] is a path to realities [ḥaqāʾiq] have made a mistake [akhṭaʾū]. For if the servant strives hard [ijtahada] in obeying Allah and fearing Him [Taqwā], his preferring of what he prefers is stronger than many weak evidences. Thus, the inspiration [ilhām] of someone like this is a valid proof for him personally [dalīl fī ḥaqqihi]…

And Abu Sulayman al-Darani said: ‘Indeed, when hearts gather upon piety [Taqwā], they roam in the heavenly realm [al-malakūt]; and they return to their companions with rare and wonderful benefits [ṭuraf al-fawāʾid], without any scholar having taught them that knowledge.’

And the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, indeed said: ‘Prayer is a light [nūr], charity is a proof [burhān], and patience is illumination [ḍiyāʾ],’ ([37]). And whoever has with him light, proof, and illumination, how could he not know the realities of things from the underlying tone [faḥwā] of the speech of their authors?! Especially the Prophetic Hadiths; for he knows them with a complete knowledge, because he genuinely intends to act upon them.

So these things cooperate in his favor, alongside his compliance [imtithāl] and love for Allah and His Messenger, to the point that the lover knows what his beloved wants from him just from the underlying tone of his speech—implicitly [talwīḥan], not [needing it to be said] explicitly [taṣrīḥan]…

And in the authentic Hadith: ‘My servant continues to draw near to Me with optional deeds [an-nawāfil] until I love him. So when I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks,’ ([38]). And whoever has Allah’s divine success [tawfīq] like this, how could he not possess piercing insight [baṣīrah nāfidhah] and an effective soul?!”

(Abridged from Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 20/44)

“And those who denied ilhām [divine inspiration] being a path in the absolute sense have made a mistake (akhṭa’ū), just as those who made it a legislated path (ṭarīqan sharʿiyyan) in the absolute sense have made a mistake.

But if the sālik [seeker] strives (ijtahada) in examining the clear Islamic evidences (al-adillah ash-sharʿiyyah aẓ-ẓāhirah) and does not see a clear preference (tarjīḥ) within them, and he is then inspired (ulhima) to prefer one of the two actions, along with his good intention and his [heart] being filled with piety (Taqwā), then the inspiration (ilhām) of such a person is an evidence (dalīl) for him personally (fī ḥaqqihi).”

(Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 10/473)

3. Imam Abd al-Aziz bin Baz on Verifying News and Rejecting Haste

“If the believer [al-muʾmin] does not verify [yatathabbat] the matters which he speaks about, he will cause the people to fall into error [al-ghalaṭ], and this is not from sincerity [an-nuṣḥ] in the religion [ad-dīn]. And Allah, the Exalted [Subḥānahu], has indeed rebuked those who do not verify the news [al-akhbār] and do not refer it back to its proper people, by His statement, the Exalted:

‘And when there comes to them information about [public] security or fear, they spread it around [adhāʿū bihi]. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it [yastanbiṭūnahu] would have known about it. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few.’ [An-Nisa: 83]

And His statement, the Exalted:

‘O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient person [fāsiq] with information [nabaʾ], investigate [fatabayyanū], lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.’ [Al-Hujurat: 6]

And he, peace and blessings be upon him [ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam], said: ‘Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent.’ Agreed upon [muttafaqun ʿalayh].

And he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘It is enough of a lie for a person to narrate everything he hears.’ Brought out by Imam Muslim in his Authentic collection [Ṣaḥīḥ].”

(Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā compiled by al-Shuwayʿir, 7/251-252)

4. Shaykh Rabee` bin Hadi al-Madkhali on the Necessity of Explained Criticism (Jarh Mufassar)

“But if he is a student of knowledge [ṭālib ʿilm], and he finds someone who contradicts this man who criticized him [jarraḥahu], then he finds another Imam who has indeed contradicted him and praised him [zakkāhu], then at that time, an explanation of this criticism [tafsīr al-jarḥ] is absolutely necessary. One does not simply submit to this critic [al-jāriḥ] as long as there is another scholar opposing him in this disparagement [tajrīḥ].

So if no one opposes him, it is accepted [yuqbal]. And if someone opposes him, then the reasons for the criticism [asbāb al-jarḥ] must be clarified—may Allah bless you [bārakallāhu fīkum]—and the matter is found in the books of Hadith terminology [kutub al-muṣṭalaḥ] and the books of the sciences of Hadith [ʿulūm al-ḥadīth].

This matter is well-known among the students of knowledge [ṭullāb al-ʿilm], so refer back to it in Muqaddimat Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, and refer to Fatḥ al-Mughīth, and refer to Tadrīb al-Rāwī, and refer to the books of this discipline [sha’n]: the sciences of Hadith and the sciences of disparagement and praise [al-Jarḥ wat-Taʿdīl].”

(Al-Hath ‘ala al-Mawaddah wal-I’tilaf)

Read at abuiyaad.com: Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī: On the Necessity of Following Criticisms Based on Verification of Evidence, Not Bigotry and Partisanship Towards Individuals

Did Imām Rabīʿ bin Hādī ever rely on “insight” alone—without bringing forth meticulously documented proofs—to declare someone an innovator or a “plant”? Never! The methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah dictates that public warnings and jarḥ must be established upon manifest evidence (Dalīl Sharʿī). When the established scholars spoke against your companion, ʿArafāt, they did not ask the people to blindly trust their “insight”; they provided concrete proofs, audio recordings, and documented evidence of his betrayals, deceptions, and lies. To act as though Shaykh al-Bukhārī is infallible (Maʿṣūm) and a scholar can hold whatever he wants without presenting evidence is a severe error in methodology.

To conclude, in this part we have shown that the established standards and principles of criticism and disparagement have been violated. Instead, appeals have been made to “mysterious knowledge” and “spiritual insight”—a methodology reminiscent of claims made by the Sūfīs—to justify castigating someone well-known for Salafiyyah and placing him alongside figures like Farrakhan, the Nation of Islām, and ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd. This approach is not acceptable to Ahl al-Sunnah nor to intelligent people; it demonstrates an inability to furnish actual evidence, covered up instead by the emotional manipulation of the audience.

May Allah bless you, open your eyes, and show the evidence to those who are blinded by partisanship. May He have mercy on us and all the Salafiyyoon.

Note on the Upcoming Section:

The next part will continue uncovering the truth behind this trial, shifting focus to our next structural point:

• 2nd Angle: The Reality of Who Caused the Splitting (Tifrīq)

Stay tuned for the full breakdown. Coming soon, in shāʾ Allāh.

And Allāh knows best. May the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon our Prophet Muḥammad, his family, and his companions.